Total Membership 25 The Forum is quorate if at least 40% (10) of the members are present

London Borough of Waltham Forest SCHOOLS FORUM Day/Date/Time Venue Wednesday 11 December 2019 and 6th Form Tea/Coffee and Light Refreshments: 5:00pm Norlington Road, , , E10 6JZ Main Meeting: 5:30pm (Parking Access via Pretoria Road) Contact: Telephone / Email: Clerk to Schools Forum [email protected] Maintained Primary Headteacher Representatives (5) Kathryn Soulard Greenleaf Tracey Griffiths Barncroft Primary School Lindsey Lampard Chingford C of E Primary Linda Adair Henry Maynard Primary School and Nursery Ruth Boon St Joseph’s Infants Primary Academies and Primary Free Schools Representatives (4) Amanda Daoud Lime Trust Larkswood Anne Powell Riverley Primary Maureen Okoye (Chair) Davies Lane Primary & Selwyn Primary VACANT Maintained Primary Governor Representatives (1) Aktar Beg Edinburgh Primary Nursery School Representative (1) Helen Currie Forest Alliance Nursery Schools Maintained Secondary Headteacher Representatives (2) Clive Rosewell Jenny Smith Frederick Bremer Secondary Academies and Secondary Free Schools Representatives (4) Tracey Penfold Highams Park John Hernandez Norlington School and Rob Pittard Norlington School and Sixth Form Jane Benton Chingford and South Chingford Foundation Maintained Secondary Governor Representative (1) Gillian Barker School for Girls Special School and Special Academies Representative (1) Elaine Colquhoun Whitefield Academy Trust PRU (1) Catherine Davis Hawkswood Group Non School Members (4) Early Years Providers Sarah Kendrick (Redwood Pre-School) 16-19 Providers Joy Kettyle () Trade Unions Steve White (NEU) Diocesan Andy Stone (Holy Family)

1 Total Membership 25 The Forum is quorate if at least 40% (10) of the members are present

AGENDA

Agenda Report Name Report Authors Item 1 Welcome all and Apologies. Chair

2 Declarations of Interest All

3 Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 November Chair 2019 and Matters Arising

3a Matters Arising Chair

3b Decision Sheet from Meeting 13 November For the record 2019

4a Growth Fund 2020-21 Jerome Francis

4b Falling Rolls Fund 2020-21 Jerome Francis

5 Update on LFF 2020-21 Jerome Francis

6 Services to Maintained Schools 2020-21 Duncan James-Pike

7 Central School Services Block 2020-21 Duncan James-Pike

8 1.Paper from SEND Crisis Ken Barlow

2.Statement from the London Borough of David Kilgallon Waltham Forest 9 Proposals for High Needs 2020-2021 David Kilgallon Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday 15 January 2020 5:30pm (Light refreshments from 5:00pm) Norlington School and 6th Form Norlington Road, Leyton, London, E10 6JZ

2 Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

MINUTES OF SCHOOLS FORUM MEETING Wednesday, 13 November 2019 Norlington School and Sixth Form 5:30-6:44

ATTENDEES Jelise Caruth Clerk to Schools Forum [email protected] Maintained Primary Headteacher Representatives (5) Kathryn Soulard Greenleaf Primary School Kate Jennings Mission Grove Lindsey Lampard Chingford C of E Primary Linda Adair Henry Maynard Primary School and Nursery Ruth Boon St Joseph’s Infants Primary Academies and Primary Free Schools Representatives (4) Amanda Daoud Lime Trust Larkswood Anne Powell Riverley Primary (Not Present) Maureen Okoye (Chair) Davies Lane Primary Academy & Selwyn Primary Academy VACANT Maintained Primary Governor Representatives (1) Aktar Beg Edinburgh Primary Nursery School Representative (1) Helen Currie Forest Alliance Nursery Schools Maintained Secondary Headteacher Representatives (2) Clive Rosewell Willowfield School Meryl Davies Walthamstow School for Girls Secondary Academies and Secondary Free School Representatives (3) Tracey Penfold Highams Park John Hernandez Norlington School and Sixth Form (Vice-Chair) Rob Pittard Norlington School and Sixth Form (Not Present) Jane Benton Chingford and South Chingford Foundation (Not Present) Maintained Secondary Governor Representative (1) Gillian Barker Walthamstow School for Girls Special School and Special Academies Representative (1) Elaine Colquhoun Whitefield trust PRU (1)

3 1 Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

Catherine Davis Hawkswood Group (Not Present) Non-School Representatives (4) Early Years Providers Sarah Kendrick (Redwood Pre-School) 16-19 Providers Liz Tattle (Waltham Forest College) Trade Unions Steve White (NEU) (Not Present) Diocesan Andy Stone (Holy Family) LBWF Officers Duncan James-Pike Strategic Finance Advisor – Children and Young People Services Raina Turner Head of Finance Families Group (Schools and Education Services) Mohammed Akhtar E Y Finance Manager Jerome Francis Principal Accountant David Kilgallon Director of Learning, Families and Homes

Sergio Dimech Principal Accountant Jelise Caruth LBWF, Clerk to Schools Forum Observers Heather Flinders Strategic Director of Families Gary Pocock Lime Trust Hornbeam Gill Hart George Tomlinson Primary School Nicola Wilson Karina Thomson Shermaine Lewis SBM, Graham Jackson SBM, Willowfield School Apologies Jane Benton Chingford and South Chingford Foundation Jenny Smith Frederick Bremer Helen Currie Forest Alliance Nursery Schools Rob Pittard Norlington School and Sixth Form

1. Welcome and Apologies

The Chair welcomed and thanked all present for attending the meeting. Norlington School & Sixth Form were thanked for offering their school as a venue for School Forum. Observers were identified and noted as well as apologies.

2. Declaration of Interest

4 2 Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

Lime Trust Hornbeam and Lime Trust Larkswood declared special school interest in relation to the agenda items. It was clarified this doesn’t exclude them.

3. Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 October 2019 and Matters Arising

It was pointed out that on page 5, item 3.3a, it should read September 2019 instead of September 2018. The time the meeting is closed should also be included on page 10.

The minutes were reviewed and approved as an accurate reflection of the meeting.

3a Decision sheet from Meeting 16 October 2019

There were no comments.

4. Local Funding Formula 2020-21

4.1 Asking Schools Forum for some key decisions tonight which will be put out to a short consultation and reported back at the December meeting.

4.2 The LA is recommending that it aims to move to using the NFF factors while using the maximum MFG of +1.84% to distribute the increase in funding we are getting in 2020-21.

4.3 The increase in funding and high MFG allows a “soft landing” into the NFF. The individual school NFF allocations that are published by the ESFA show the NFF calculations, but these are overridden for our schools by the ESFA inflating a baseline that is above current NFF levels. When we use a high MFG the outcome under the LFF and NFF are similar as the MFG overlays any other effects.

4.4 Table 1 shows that the higher the MFG the more evenly the increases are shared out and the lower the MFG the less evenly the increases are shared out: the minimum increase becomes smaller and the maximum increase becomes bigger. This is our recommended model as it seems to match 3 of the 4 principles: fairness, stability and transparency.

4.5 Table 2 shows that the lower the MFG the less it costs so that more funding is available to allocate through other factors.

4.6 Table 3 is like Table 1 but uses the hybrid method (halfway between the NFF and LFF). Again, the MFG is the most important factor. Appendix 1 shows the NFF- based model G

4.7 Appendix 2 shows the hybrid-based model H. For many schools not that much difference between G and H

4.8 Appendix 3 shows MFG operating: takes all pupil led funding + split sites + PFI but excludes rates and lump sum

5 3

Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

4.9 Appendix 4 shows the factor rates used in the different models. The NFF block shows the greater emphasis on LPA and IDACI and less emphasis on Basic Entitlement (AWPU) as discussed previously

4.10 Appendix 5 shows indicative actual and per pupil costs of top slicing for different levels of the Falling Rolls Fund, contingencies and possible contributions to the Growth Fund or HNB

4.11 Comments, Questions and Responses

There were none.

4.12 Recommendation:

4.13 To note that we will be doing a week-long online consultation to check out your decisions giving all schools the opportunity to comment and also to agree: to either move towards the NFF as in model G or something else; preference for MFG to be at 1.84% as a maximum set or at another rate; and if we do have any additional funding available after running the formula that we put that through basic entitlement (AWPU) or another way. This will be our mandate for how we aim to do things. Once we get the October 19 census in mid-December then the actual budgeting tool may need to be moderated if it starts calculating strange outliers. This will set the principles by which we set the budget.

4.14 Vote to agree on 2.2.1A (NFF Model G) or 2.2.1B (another model): A- 16 B-0 No Abstentions

4.15 Vote to agree 2.3A (MFG +1.84%) or 2.3B (another rate): A-16 B-0 No Abstentions

4.16 Vote to agree 2.4A (Basic Entitlement) or 2.4B (another method) A-16 B-0 No Abstentions

5. Growth Fund and Falling Rolls Fund

5.1 We are asking School Forum to note the minimum allocation that we expect to get is £885,000 but we’re expecting to spend £1.47 million on growing the existing scheme and it is needed to agree how to close the gap. There are several ways of doing this. Either we honour the growth scheme in full and top slice the schools block; or we honour it in full and we use Growth Funding reserve; or our preferred method, a combination of the two; or scale back to cost no more than the money that we have available.

5.2 We will talk a little bit later about the Falling Rolls Fund and the proposal we use to decide the criteria.

6 4

Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

5.3 Section 4.1 of the report is technical and sets out the details of how the funding agency determines the growth impact.

5.4 Section 4.2 sets out the anticipated impact in Waltham Forest and our projection for the next few years. The projected demand on the Growth Fund is reducing due to the earlier primary expansions starting to mature.

5.5 Section 4.3 sets out the guidance for Falling Rolls criteria and section 5 sets out our current criteria and the table page 31 shows the funding due under the current criteria. Just two schools would meet the criteria which are Sybourn and St Joseph’s Catholic’s Infants.

5.6 Page 32 shows the impact of our revised criteria. Last year the Falling Rolls Fund protected them from a sudden drop where the LA hadn’t agreed for them to reduce their planned admissions and where they had a 20% vacancy.

The Growth Fund is School Forum’s decision on how much we retain and how much we top slice or not.

It wasn’t intended to support the school over a longer term and indeed you can only qualify for support for three years. It wasn’t thought that this was the spirit of the meeting last time, though Schools Forum did want to protect the school from sudden change.

5.7 The appendices on pages 23 and 24 show the various top slices and the costs to each school. To keep the Falling Rolls Fund at a capped level would cost around £39,000 so that’s roughly £1 per pupil in each school. The current Falling Rolls Fund would be around £80,000, so twice that per pupil.

5.8 Comments, Questions and Responses

5.9 Question: How much is in the Growth Fund reserve?

5.10 Response: £1.014 million

5.11 Question: Would it be possible for Primary Heads to have a quick meeting?

5.12 Response: If it aids decision, yes.

5.13 Secondary heads also wanted to meet briefly.

5.14 The meeting paused whilst Primary and Secondary heads convened seperately.

5.15 Meeting reconvened after a five-minute break

5.16 Comments, Questions & Responses

5.17 Question: Regarding the Falling Rolls Fund, is the proposal to top slice schools to provide that fund, is this what the proposal is?

7 5 Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

5.18 Response: Yes, If School Forum decide to keep the Growth Fund scheme as it is currently: the gap needs to be funded either from a top-slice, some top-slice and some from reserves, or entirely from reserves and have little reserves left.

Alternatively, you don’t honour the full scheme any longer. It depends on those decisions. In one way or another it’s coming out of the money that you have available. So, it’s either a direct top slice or an indirect top slice.

5.19 Question: So, the Falling Rolls Fund, could come out of the Growth Fund reserves?

5.20 Response: Not if we use all of the reserves up on the existing Growth Fund scheme.

5.20 Question: But if we didn’t vote for that, if we voted to live within our means and that the Growth Fund was still there, could we use that Growth Fund to pay for Falling Rolls?

5.21 Response: Yes, it’s a subset of the Growth Fund.

5.22 St Joseph’s Infants declared interest as benefitting from Falling Rolls. It was clarified that this doesn’t discount them from voting.

5.23 Question: If we are talking about top slicing reserves, i.e. some combination of the top slice and some combination of reserves, and that is to cover the expected costs of £1.48 million?

5.24 Question: What combination of top slice to reserves would you be looking to do?

5.26 Response: It would likely be half top slice and half reserves.

5.27 Question: Are we voting on what mechanism is used to allocate a certain amount of moneys to these two schools that would benefit from the Falling Rolls. Is there one option that funded St Joseph at £80,000 and another that funds £39,000? What are we voting on?

5.28 Response: First of all, we are asking for a vote on the main Growth Fund scheme that deals with the bulge classes and the permanent expansions. We know that this is tailing off in Primary as those mature but Secondary bulge classes are starting to come on. One of the things we do is protect bulge classes because of the risk of taking them on.

5.29 Question: So historically there has been Primary increase, and now it’s coming through to Secondary? Its going to fund the Secondary increase?

5.30 Response: Yes, we are still funding some of the growth in Primary as the permanent expansions and the bulge classes haven’t all worked their way through, but they are working their way through. Now we have some significant capacity building in Secondary schools.

5.31 We are assuming, that in the three of the options, you wish to honour the existing Growth Fund scheme that gives the bulge class protection in the way we have been

8 6

Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

doing for Primary schools and Secondary schools. If so, there is a gap and we need to either top slice, use all the reserves or a combination of the two, which I would suggest be about 50/50, which gives you a little bit of padding for the year after depending on the cost of that. Or we scale it back, and say you have £885,000 to spend, beyond this we’ll have to cut back the scheme.

5.32 Vote on the four options: A-0 (honour scheme & top slice) B-0 (hounour scheme & use reserves) C-7 (honour scheme & use combination of top slice & reserves) D-8 (scale back to allocation) 1 Abstention

5.33 Comments, Questions & Responses

5.34 Comment from the Vice-Chair: Over the last years secondaries have always voted to fund expansion that was impacting on primary and top slice has happened and been taken out because its impacting students within the borough. Secondaries have always voted for this to ensure it happens. We have now the situation where the expansion is only impacting on secondary for the first time so to see the vote go that way is disturbing because it’s not about what is in the best interests of all the students in the borough.

5.35 Comment: We have always been here for children, and when the discussion happens we cannot vote in favour of primary and secondary children we have to vote in favour of Waltham Forest children.

Following that comment, there was a follow up that asked if reserves can be used to close the gap. It was clarified that this was the question asked earlier.

5.36 Response: It was about reserves being used for Falling Rolls.

5.37 Comment: So not a combination of top slice and reserves but reserves only being used to cover the amounts being paid out.

5.38 Question: So no top slice at all?

5.39 Response: That’s what we agreed.

5.40 Comment: Which is £750,000 less than required, which is going to directly impact on Secondaries expanding over the course of next year significantly. Again, Secondaries have always voted for the benefit of Primaries because it’s the right thing to do.

5.41 Question: For clarification, have schools budgets been top sliced in the past in order to fund?

5.42 Response: Yes, and as we moved toward the NFF 2 years ago the amount that we were spending on the Growth Fund was put into the national pot and then last year we got the same amount of money back being reduced by no more that 0.5% of the

9 7 Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

schools block budget, which is the calculation we’ve shown you which is why we think we will get £885,000 this year.

5.43 Comment: To assure Secondary heads, when we convened it wasn’t a Primary : Secondary split, we were just talking about the top slice. For some of the smaller schools the top slice is a massive impact. It is agreed we should be supporting it. Can we look at this again, have we got time to bring this back so we can explore it more?

5.44 Comment: This comment was accepted. Even Secondaries can only use the reserves once, we won’t go only for a top slice which is what has happened year after year. We’ll do a combination of the two because what is best for Secondaries is a straight top slice for everyone, but we didn’t suggest that as we are trying to be fair and keep common ground between the two. We are going for option C, which is top slice and reserve.

5.45 Question: Would the reserves cover the cost for this year or for more than one year?

5.46 Response: It was suggested if this discussion can be picked up at the December forum. Its not critical that we get the decision in the November forum as we still have time to come back to this in December.

5.47 Comment: The key thing is to bring the agenda item back checking that the reserve can cover it. If not the then that will inform the decision.

5.48 Comment: We need to be clearer in terms of the top slice because at the moment the proposals on the page say indicative examples. It’s all very well voting for a combination of something but if you don’t know exactly what you are voting for its difficult to be precise. We do take Secondary Heads’ point but we don’t want to vote in a vacuum for something that will have a significant impact on school budgets.

5.49 Response: The combination would be half and half.

5.50 Comment: In terms of the sensitivities and the need for detail in this discussion, whilst I understand the solution to bring it back to the next agenda, its already a heavy agenda. It’s not certain whether there will be the time in that School Forum meeting to discuss it. The suggestion is to have a meeting before then to work it through. Meaning having a separate meeting, possibly a week before the School Forum, just for this agenda item in order for Secondary Heads and Primary Heads to talk it through and understand the details.

5.51 Question: Would that reverse the decision made today?

5.52 Response: We will postpone the decision.

5.53 Comment: Because we just had that vote we need to formally set that vote aside.

5.54 Response: Yes, we are deciding to set the vote aside for the next meeting.

5.55 Vote to set aside the last decision in order to come back to it at the next meeting:

10 8

Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

Yes- 15 No- 0 1 Abstention

5.56 Comments, Questions & Responses

5.57 Comment: It would be helpful if we had more time to look at the papers and get them earlier before the meeting because we haven’t had time to meet as Primary Heads and we have had not a lot of time to get our heads around a lot of figures.

5.59 Comment: Speaking in General, it would be better to get the papers at least two weeks in advance.

5.60 Response: This would mean all of December’s papers being ready in the next two weeks which would be near impossible.

5.61 Question: Would at least seven days in advance be more possible?

5.62 Response: It will be very difficult to do this: we have set the call-over dates for the officials, Chair and Vice Chair to get together. Call over has been set for the week before and for as long as can be recalled all the papers go out on the Friday before the Wednesday of School Forum. Call over is on the Wednesday, papers are then very often amended sometimes in considerable detail. There was an exception made last month as the amount of amendment was so great. This would mean we have to reschedule everything in order to try and hit those deadlines.

5.63 Comment: Then I don’t think we can be asked to vote reliably or sensibly when we haven’t had time given how busy we all are to sit and try and digest and convene meetings. If Schools Forum and the LA want us to make informed decisions we have to be able to insist that we get the papers at least a week in advance.

5.67 Comment: To support what has been said about needing some meaningful time, for us as a group of Secondary Heads to be able to make meaningful decisions and us to be able to comment, it’s impossible for us to analyse and that’s partly the problem today where things then get set aside. Not sure with the logistics how things could change but totally support what has been said about schools needing some meaningful time as they are such huge important decisions. 5.66 Comment: From our point of view we are being asked to make considerable decisions on behalf of our colleagues based on two days to read the documents.

5.64 The Chair deferred this response to the Strategic Finance Advisor

5.68 Response: We will take this away as a LA. Appreciating that there are tight deadlines, there is a lot of work that goes into meet these deadlines, but it has been heard what has been said.

6. High Needs Block Update 2019-20, 2020-21 & Disapplication request

6.1 Appendix A: Summary of expenditure for the High Needs Block for 2019-20. The first four rows show the initial gross grant that that we are receiving for the HNB and this is the figure of £37.4 million. The money remaining for the LA is £28.9 million. This

11 9

Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

money we use to pay for place funding, for maintained schools, independent and special schools and some elements for support services. Most of this money, £22 million goes to top up payments to special schools, mainstreams schools and Post 16 provision. Of that £22 million, nearly £10 million to special schools and nearly £8 million goes to mainstream schools.

6.2 The report tells us that against the allocation that we have of £28.8 million we’re expected to spend £32.3 million. Meaning an in-year deficit of £3.4 million. We do get additional funds from the Early Years Block, this year it’s around £800,000. There’s a small overspend of around £69,000 for this.

6.3 What is happening is that we have a £3.5 million deficit this year, meaning we will have a £5.2 million deficit to carry over into next year.

6.4 Section 4 of the report gives an indicative funding position for 2021. This is good news, as it is saying that the gross allocation goes up to £42.3 million which is approximately £5 million more next year. The increase is on the understanding that there are no changes to the import and export of pupils coming in or leaving. Even with this increased expenditure demand will still outstrip the grant that we are getting. This is reflected in Table 2. What is known is that there has been growth in EHC plans and there are plans to provide better alternative provision.

6.5 One way to address the gap is to transfer £303,000 from the school block into the high needs block.

6.6 In section 5 the LA is asking School Forum to support a request to ministers to implement a special schools minimum funding guarantee of -1.5%. Guidance changed recently and restricted the special schools MFG to 0%. Before the guidance changes it seemed that the special schools would accept the MFG being triggered. Now the guidance has changed, the two Trusts have both said no. Special schools are allocated £17.5 million or nearly 43% of the entire high needs budget. The LA thinks its reasonable to ask them to contribute towards for 2020-21 budget. In the consultation document to this report we state that these amounts should be affordable due to healthy reserves.

Whitefield Academy Trust is allocated over £10 million, that is over 25% of the whole high needs block. Whitefield’s reserves have grown at an average £450,000 per year in the 4 years since conversion to an academy from £1.6 million to £3.4 million. The Whitefield Trust’s own financial statement for 2017-18 says that £2.3 million of these reserves are in an excess of its own policy requirement.

6.7 Hornbeam Academy Trust is allocated over £6 million that is over 15% of the whole high needs block. Hornbeam’s reserves have grown at an average of £460,000 per year in the six years since conversion to an academy from £144,000 to £2.94 million of which £2.1 million relates to Brookfield House and William Morris. The Hornbeam Trust’s own financial statement for 2017-18 says that £1.9 million are in excess of the trust’s own policy requirement.

The LA believes that these relatively modest funds can be afforded without affecting pupil outcomes and asks that Schools Forum supports the LA in asking the ministers to allow a specials schools MFG of -1.5% to be triggered.

12 10

Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

6.8 To note 2.1 to 2.1.5

6.9 Comments, Questions & Responses

6.10 Comment: We are part way through the consultation about the high needs block. The part about special schools is that this proposal is one part of it but there are other parts to it. It is a jigsaw and if we lose part of that other parts of the jigsaw will have to take a larger role. We have to achieve a balanced budget. The reality is this means top ups into our special schools and top ups into our mainstream schools. The hardest hitting is the one we have been talking about which is to take 10% off all current E and F Band students. That’s is thought to be asking a lot of our mainstream schools. This is why it was thought that the special schools would contribute The reality is we can’t do that in specials schools while they are fully protected. It is disappointing but it’s strongly thought as a group of schools this is a fair and reasonable request.

6.11 Comment: The most vulnerable children in the LA are in special schools and Whitefield take pupils from 19 LAs. Some of that money sitting in the surplus is first of all due to being a big academy. Academy rules are that you have to keep a certain amount of contingency to pay staff. Secondly, the reason there is a surplus to that extent is that the funding for special needs and specials schools has been so volatile over the last few years we have deliberately not spent some of that funding in case we needed it as it could be seen things were going to get complex. Thirdly, the government has recognised this. This has been openly lobbied nationally through all the different specials schools network, to the ministers and the DfE. The swell of this is from parents. There are tribunals taking place across the country about vulnerable specials schools funding being cut and in mainstreams schools. Parents are asking why is it that the schools are going to receive less funding. We could see this coming and we’ve been stockpiling and not doing the things that we want. One of the things we want to do at Whitefield is that we need more building work done. Whitefield pays for this. Some of the work we have been doing comes from the development trust which comes from the Charity. We’ve been using that money on ordinary school things. Our monthly Salary bill is a million. Putting it into that context its not a lot. The biggest thing is we are actually going to reduce the amount of money for the most vulnerable children in the borough.

6.12 Comment: It was clarified that it’s not Hornbeam Trust, it is Hornbeam Academy. Thinks its very important to note that Hornbeam Academy Trust does not exist as an entity anymore because the three schools have now transferred over to the Lime Trust. The Hornbill Academy reserves that were quoted have mainly been built up from schools in Havering. Last year to the end of August 2019, Hornbeam Academy was overspent by £0.5 million. This will be seen when the accounts are published in December. Hornbeam Academy over spent by £0.5 million. We are all feeling the pressure. Special schools have the highest number of staff because of the needs of the children so we are feeling the costs pressures. Like Whitefield we have to fund building work. William Morris campus has currently got nearly a million pounds worth of building work going on all being funded by those reserves that you now expect us to fund our running costs on.

13 11 Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

6.13 Comment: This is my first Schools Forum, but already we have had a previous issue potentially setting one sector against another. Here we have another issue setting one sector against another. It’s a difficult thing and everyone is going to argue their own corner, but the reality is that we’ve all got financial pressures. Most schools have nothing like that as a reserve at all. Many Schools have zero reserves. We have got to say we have to share the burdens. You can always make a case that these are the most vulnerable children, but we’ve all got vulnerable children in all of the schools. The fairest thing to do is to say that we have all got to take a hit and I don’t think it’s a matter of specials schools must inevitably be protected.

6.14 Comment: Picking up the point that many schools don’t have any reserves at all, we are not able to bid for more funding or any initiative at the moment because of our financial situation and we are a teaching school as well.

6.15 Question: This is a question about clarity, we’re talking about reserves but if there is a a commitment to building works surely that would show differently in the finances if the money is actually committed?. Are these clear-cut reserves that are not assigned?

6.16 Comment: Many of us don’t have the benefit of reserves but we are talking about the money that comes to every provision after school-age. So for those very vulnerable young people that are still very vulnerable, our role in a matter of 2 or 3 years, if we’re lucky, is take them from how they have left their schools to being prepared for adulthood and being out there on their own. We respect it is a really big ask but it is a vital one. We respect what you do for the 5-7 years schools have them. We have half of that time. If we lose money there is very little out there afterwards other than Adult Social Care.

6.17 Comment: Lime Trust clarified they are from 2-19 years.

6.18 Vote for Schools Forum to approve 2.2.1 on page 33 For- 13 Against- 2 Abstention- 1

6.19 Comments, Questions & Responses

6.20 Question: As a point of clarification can you explain the disapplication process.

6.21 Response: we will continue to apply to ministers to allow us to change the MFG. Not as a direct cut but as a consequence of other actions i.e. changing the funding bands. The difference in the MFG means going from not being able to fund you for less than last year to being funded 1.5% less than last year. We will need to agree with you, should we be successful in that, how exactly we calculate that. There is a method with some nuances to it. We will provide an information pack to ministers which will be included to say we now have the support of Schools Forum to take this action. We will be forwarding copies of your financial statements and comments made therein and any analysis we can do to suggest that our intentions are affordable.

6.22 Question: Are you going to ask what our reserves will be used for?

14 12 Schools Forum – 13 November 2019

6.23 Comment: What I’ve done this evening is I’ve quoted these financial statements from 2017-18 which said that you were holding £2.3 million in excess of your own policy requirement and similarly with the other Trust it was £1.9 million of those reserves that were in excess of the Trust’s own policy requirement. Everybody has condition surveys they could earmark their reserves against but I’m simply bringing up the broad fact that they were in excess of your own policy requirement.

6.24 Response: Whitefield will send in the latest financial statement.

6.25 Comment: The LA will go ahead with the disapplication process.

6.26 Officers offered to work with the special schools as these are still Waltham Forest children.

Finally, officers asked that if anything else is needed to support understanding the Forum were encouraged to say so.

7. Date of next Meeting: Wednesday 11 December 2019 5:30pm (light refreshments from 5:00pm) Norlington School and Sixth Form Norlington Road , Leyton London E10 6JZ

Thanks were given to all.

Meeting closed 18:44.

15 13 3a Matters Arising from Schools Forum meeting on 13 November 2019 :

Schools Forum Principles Schools Forum apply the following principles to funding decisions: • Transparency • Fairness • Stability • Support for vulnerable students In accordance with the operational and good practice guide, members of Schools Forum consider the needs of the whole of the educational community rather than sectional or specific interests.

Additional Briefings and Information The Chair and Vice-Chair and Officers have re-arranged the call-over meetings to enable officers to despatch papers a week in advance. Officers in the Education Finance Team are always available to explain and give more detail on any issue referred to Schools Forum either to individuals or by invitation to regular or ad hoc head teachers’ / school business managers’ meetings. Officers are available in person for an hour before each meeting to brief members on the papers for that meeting.

Education Finance Team Contacts

[email protected] 0208 496 3502

[email protected] 0208 496 3520

[email protected] 0208 496 6805

[email protected] 0208 496 6308

16 Decision Sheet Schools Forum 13 November 2019

Schools Forum 13 November 2019

Summary of Decisions

Item 4 Local Funding Formula 2020-21

2.1 Schools Forum noted:

2.1.1 The contents of this report

2.1.2 That an on-line consultation following the decisions below will be held between 25 and 29 November and results will be reported back to December Schools Forum.

2.2 Schools Forum agreed:

2.2.1 That the opportunity provided by the largest increase in Schools Block Funding in recent years is used to move to the NFF Funding Factors (MODEL G).

2.3 A preference for the Minimum Funding Guarantee to be set at +1.84%.

2.4 That any additional funding available after running the formula is used to increase Basic Entitlement (AWPU).

Item 5 Growth fund and Falling Rolls Fund 2020-21

Schools Forum decided:

To postpone any decisions on the Growth Fund and Falling Rolls Fund until December while further detail was provided and considered.

Item 6 High Needs Block Update 2019-20, 2020-21 & Disapplication reques

2.1 Schools Forum noted:

2.1.1 The net in-year increase in funding to the High Needs block of £82,237 resulting in a gross HN allocation of £37.481 million.

2.1.2 The Financial Year 2019-20 projected outturn is £3.505 million higher than the budget allocated and that the cumulative High Needs deficit at the end of 2019-20 is forecast to be £5.241 million.

1

17 Decision Sheet Schools Forum 13 November 2019

2.1.3 The largest items of expenditure in 2019-20 are top up payments: Special schools £9.788 million; Mainstream schools £7.765 million; and Special Resource Provisions £3.061million.

2.1.4 That an on-line consultation on the local funding formula will be held between 25 and 29 November and will include a question on a transfer of £303,000 from the Schools Block into the High Needs Block for 2020-21.

2.1.5 That a consultation on changes to the top-ups for banding levels in 2020-21 has begun and ends 2 December 2019. Results will be presented to the December Schools Forum.

2.2 Schools Forum approved:

2.2.1 That the Local Authority submits a disapplication request to the DFE to allow the Local Authority to apply a -1.5% MFG to Special Schools Budgets for 2020-21, transferring £300,000 from special schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Block.

2

18 Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 4a 11 December 2019 Report Title Growth Fund 2020-21

Decision/Discussion/ For Discussion and Decision by all Information Report Author/ Duncan James-Pike, Strategic Finance Advisor, Contact details 020 8496 3502 duncan,[email protected] 020 8496 3502

Jerome Francis, Principal Accountant Education Finance [email protected] 020 8496 6805

Appendix A - Growth Fund Scheme B – Growth Fund Forecasts 2020-21

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report sets out the indicative Growth Fund allocation for 2020-21 and proposes any shortfall is funded from reserves. Growth funding enables local authorities to support schools with significant in-year pupil growth, which is not otherwise immediately recognised by the lagged funding system.

1.2 Schools Forum decides the level of central spend and the criteria for allocating funding for significant pre-16 pupil growth, including new schools set up to meet basic need, whether maintained or academy.

1.3 Schools Forum on 13 November requested that a growth fund paper was brought back to December Schools Forum so that a briefing meeting could be held with all Schools Forum members who wished to attend.

1.4 At the Growth Fund briefing meeting on 27 November it was noted that the forecast ESFA allocation published in the November Schools Forum report was under estimating Waltham Forest’s likely allocation by around £400,000. It was estimated in the November report as £0.875 million but we are now forecasting our allocation will be £1.275 million due to the protection provided by the ESFA being based on our 2019-20 allocation rather than actual expenditure in 2019-20.

1

19 2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Schools Forum to note:

2.1.1 The revised indicative Growth Fund allocation for 2020-21 is £1.275 million.

2.1.2 The forecast Growth Fund reserves at the end of the 2019-20 financial year is £0.969 million.

2.2 Growth Fund

Schools Forum to agree:

2.2.1 The Growth Fund scheme is continued with the current criteria for 2020-21 as in Appendix A

2.2.2 The £1.275 million indicative Growth Fund allocation is retained centrally.

2.2.3 To use £225,000 from Growth Fund Reserves to set a total 2020-21 Growth Fund budget of £1.5 million.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 In 2019-20, Waltham Forest received £2.285 million in Growth Funding. The National Funding Formula suggests that the minimum to be received for 2020- 21 is £1.275 million as shown in the Table 1 below.

Table 1 – ESFA Indicative Allocation

£m Growth Funding 2019-20 2.285

Overall Schools Block funding 2019-20 202.146

Maximum deduction 0.5% of Schools Block 1.01

Minimum Growth Funding expected 2020-21 1.275

3.2 In order to forecast the expenditure for 2020-21, we take into account the maturing primary bulges and the addition of secondary bulges: one primary bulge and one primary permanent expansion mature and two further secondary bulges are planned for September 2020. The Growth Fund summary from 2019-20 to 2022-23 is shown in Table 2 below:

2

20 Table 2 – Analysis of Numbers & Growth Funding

FOUR YEAR SUMMARY 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23

PRIMARY BULGES 1 0 0 0 PRIMARY PE'S 7 6 2 0 PRIMARY TOTAL 8 6 2 0 SECONDARY BULGES 1 3 4 2 SECONDARY PE'S 0 0 1 3 SECONDARY TOTAL 1 3 5 5

TOTAL 9 9 7 5

Cost (Provisional after 19-20) £1.8m £1.5m £1.3m £1.3m Allocation £2.285m £1.275m £1.085m £1.085m In Year Surplus/Deficit £0.485m (£0.225m) (£0.215m) (£0.215m) Total Reserves £0.969m £0.744 £0.529m £0.314m

3.3 The School Place Planning service advise that whilst the year 7 cohort in the provisional October 2019 census is 2,910, down from 2,937 in October 2018, the applications LBWF have received to date for September 2020 places indicate a total cohort of 3,109 next year. This can be partially attributed to an increased retention rate from Year 6 to Year 7, with fewer pupils moving to Out of Borough Schools. This, without bulges, would give year 7 spare capacity of 2% across the borough, well below the recommended rate of 5%. This necessitates the three additional year 7 bulges in secondary in September 2020.

3

21 Appendix A

Growth Fund Scheme

In this document “school” means any maintained school, academy or free school

Permanent Expansions

When a school admits an additional form of entry as part of a permanent expansion planned by the LA it will be eligible for support from the Growth Fund.

First year funding guarantee

Each new form of entry will receive a first year funding guarantee: a minimum of 7/12 x 25 x average pupil-led funding rate for the school, i.e. for a minimum of 25 places for seven months (September to March).

If more than 25 pupils appear on the following October census for Reception / Year 7, additional average pupil-led funding will be allocated. There will be no claw-back if less than 25 pupils appear.

Second and subsequent entry years of expansion

1.4 Ordinarily, the first year funding guarantee will apply in the second and subsequent years to each new form entry until the fully expanded PAN has been reached.

1.5 Where more than one form of entry has been implemented, and more than 30 additional pupils appear on the following October census, the first year funding guarantee will apply for the first form of entry up to 30, then for any subsequent forms up to the NOR.

Years after admission

1.6 Funding for the year group for the financial year following admission will reflect the actual NOR in the October census, in line with all other year groups.

Permanent expansion when a bulge class is in its final year

1.7 When a permanent expansion occurs in the same year as a maturing bulge class, an adjustment is necessary as the school would benefit from the bulge class final year protection but does not require assistance with a contraction in resources. The bulge class final year protection will be deducted from the permanent expansion’s first year funding guarantee to avoid double-funding

1

22 Appendix A

Leadership and Management Allowance

1.8 Where there is a planned expansion of a school by at least 1FE, the local authority will provide additional leadership and management funding worth a maximum of £150,000 in recognition of the increase in management costs associated with expansion.

1.9 This shall be released in staged payments. If at any stage the proposal to expand is cancelled the staged payments shall only be paid up to the end of the stage at which the project is stopped.

Leadership And Management Allowance Primary

Stage 1 At point of the second bulge class intake £20,000

At point of approval of the permanent Stage 2 expansion of PAN by Cabinet/Secretary of £30,000 State.

September of the first form entry of the Stage 3 £75,000 permanent expansion.

April preceding the September entry of the Stage 4 £25,000 second year of expansion.

Leadership And Management Allowance Secondary At point of approval of the permanent Stage 1 expansion of PAN by Cabinet/Secretary of £50,000 State.

September of the first form entry of the Stage 2 £50,000 permanent expansion.

April preceding the September entry of the Stage 3 £50,000 second year of expansion.

2

23 Appendix A

Second sites

1.10 Commitments made to schools which have expanded onto second sites in agreement with the local authority will be honoured, but further expansions onto second sites will not receive additional funding.

Year of Planned number Shortfall Funding at Capacity expansion of pupils on site £150 per pupil

420 1 60 360 £54,000

420 2 120 300 £45,000

420 3 180 240 £36,000

420 4 240 180 £27,000

420 5 300 120 £18,000

Resources

1.11 An additional £5,000 will be paid for each new FE towards the cost of additional resources when the first year funding guarantee is applicable.

3

24 Appendix A

2 Temporary (Bulge Class) Expansions

2.1 When a school admits an additional form of entry as a temporary expansion (bulge class) planned by the LA it will be eligible for support from the Growth Fund.

First year funding guarantee

2.2 Each new bulge class will receive a first year funding guarantee: a minimum of 7/12 x 25 x average pupil-led funding rate for the school, i.e. for a minimum of 25 places for seven months (September to March).

2.3 Where more than one bulge class has been implemented for the same year group in an academic year, and more than 30 additional pupils appear on the following October census, the first year funding guarantee will apply for the first bulge class up to 30, then for any subsequent classes up to the NOR.

2.4 If more than 25 pupils appear on the following October census for Reception / Year 7, additional average pupil-led funding will be allocated. There will be no claw-back if less than 25 pupils appear.

Years after admission: minimum class size guarantee (see Table below)

2.5 The Local Authority will give a minimum class size guarantee of AWPU funding for 25 pupils per bulge class until the final year the bulge class is in the school unless the numbers in the bulge class fall to zero, when the class size guarantee will cease.

2.6 Class size protection for bulge classes is capped at 15 AWPUs.

2.7 In the final year the class size protection will be reduced to 5/12 of AWPU to reflect that the bulge class matures after five months.

Final year protection

2.8 The final year of a bulge class gives protection to the school. When a bulge class matures, the seven months (September to March) funding generated by the bulge class pupils is retained by the school to assist with the contraction in resources.

Resources

2.9 An additional £5,000 will be paid for each new FE towards the cost of additional resources when the first year funding guarantee is applicable

4

25 Appendix A

3 Reception and Key Stage 1 classes

3.1 Where as a result of an appeal or the Local Authority asks a school to take a pupil which takes the number in the reception or Key Stage 1 class to over 30, the Local Authority will meet the cost of an additional teaching assistant to keep the class size at 30 or below. Payments will be made termly in arrears based on submitted evidence of costs incurred by the school.

Table: Minimum Class Size Guarantee

MINIMUM CLASS SIZE GUARANTEE - SECONDARY MINIMUM CLASS SIZE GUARANTEE - PRIMARY £4,952 £3,639 Top Up Places Secondary Top Up Places Primary Over PAN Places Funded AWPU Over PAN Places Funded AWPU 25 or 25 or more 0 0 £0 more 0 0 £0 24 1 25 £4,952 24 1 25 £3,639 23 2 25 £9,904 23 2 25 £7,278 22 3 25 £14,856 22 3 25 £10,917 21 4 25 £19,808 21 4 25 £14,556 20 5 25 £24,760 20 5 25 £18,195 19 6 25 £29,712 19 6 25 £21,834 18 7 25 £34,664 18 7 25 £25,473 17 8 25 £39,616 17 8 25 £29,112 16 9 25 £44,568 16 9 25 £32,751 15 10 25 £49,520 15 10 25 £36,390 14 11 25 £54,472 14 11 25 £40,029 13 12 25 £59,424 13 12 25 £43,668 12 13 25 £64,376 12 13 25 £47,307 11 14 25 £69,328 11 14 25 £50,946 10 15 25 £74,280 10 15 25 £54,585 9 15 24 £74,280 9 15 24 £54,585 8 15 23 £74,280 8 15 23 £54,585 7 15 22 £74,280 7 15 22 £54,585 6 15 21 £74,280 6 15 21 £54,585 5 15 20 £74,280 5 15 20 £54,585 4 15 19 £74,280 4 15 19 £54,585 3 15 18 £74,280 3 15 18 £54,585 2 15 17 £74,280 2 15 17 £54,585 1 15 16 £74,280 1 15 16 £54,585 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 £0

5

26 Appendix B - Growth Fund Allocations for 2020-21

Primary Primary Secondary Secondary New Bulge Permanent Permanent Permanent Permanent Bulge Class Falling Rolls School Name Classes Expansions Expansions Expansions Expansions Top-up Fund Planned (Forward (Backward (Forward (Backward Look) Look) Look) Look) TOTAL PRIMARIES £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 137,303 12,730 150,033 Buxton All Through 0 Chingford Hall Primary School(Salisbury Manor) 70,303 70,303 Coppermill Primary School 7,146 7,146 Hillyfield Primary Academy 66,132 66,132 Lime Academy Larkswood 53,595 53,595 Mission Grove Primary School 22,331 22,331 Parkside Primary School 10,719 10,719 Selwyn Primary School 11,910 11,910 St Joseph's Infants 78,096 78,096 Stoneydown Park School 134,542 12,454 146,996 Sybourn Primary Academy 2,124 2,124 The Jenny Hammond Primary School 66,192 66,192 SECONDARIES £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Heathcote School & Science College 181,342 0 181,342 Holy Family Catholic School 177,697 0 177,697 93,103 93,103 School 89,018 48,630 137,648 Norlington School 89,161 89,161

SUBTOTAL 271,283 154,331 474,472 25,184 359,039 0 80,219 1,364,529

PROVISION FOR EXTRA PUPILS TAKING CLASS SIZE OVER 30 90,000

PROVISION FOR INCREASE IN PER PUPIL RATES FOR 2020-21 45,471

GROWTH FUND TOTAL 1,500,000

27 Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 4b 11 December 2019 Report Title Falling Rolls Fund 2020-21

Decision/Discussion/ For Discussion and Decision by all Information Report Author/ Duncan James-Pike, Strategic Finance Advisor, Contact details 020 8496 3502 duncan,[email protected] 020 8496 3502

Jerome Francis, Principal Accountant Education Finance [email protected] 020 8496 6805

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Within the Growth Fund Local Authorities may retain a small fund to support schools with temporarily falling rolls where local planning data shows that the surplus places will be needed within the next three financial years. This report proposes the continuation of the Falling Rolls fund with the inclusion of an additional criterion that will cap support to schools in consecutive years.

1.2 Schools Forum should agree both the value of the fund and the criteria for allocation and the LA should regularly update Schools Forum on the use of the funding.

1.3 In 2019-20 there are two schools that qualified:

• St Joseph’s Infants (£71,389 or 9.63% of their 2019-20 SB allocation)

• George Tomlinson (£32,157 or 1.53% of their 2019-20 SB allocation)

1.4 If the falling rolls fund is kept with the same criteria there would be two schools that qualify for 2020-21:

• St Joseph’s Infants (£78,096 or 10.38% of its indicative 2020-21 SB allocation)

• Sybourn Primary (£2,124 or 0.09% of its indicative 2020-21 SB allocation)

1.5 As the purpose of the falling rolls fund is to support a school with a temporary drop in NOR, rather than a long term drop in numbers, it is proposed to

1

28 introduce a cap on the amount schools can receive from the Falling Rolls fund in consecutive years.

1.6 If the falling rolls fund is kept with the addition of a cap, the sum allocated to St Joseph’s Infants would reduce £37,629 (5% of its indicative 2020-21 SB allocation).

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

Schools Forum to agree:

2.1 To continue the Falling Rolls Fund

2.2.1 If yes, continue with the current criteria, estimated cost £80,000, or

2.2.2 To introduce the following cap, estimated cost £40,000:

1st Year – No Capping

2nd Year - Capped at 5% of school’s post-MFG Schools Block Allocation

3rd Year - Capped at 2% of school’s post-MFG Schools Block Allocation

4th Year & Beyond – Cannot qualify for Falling Rolls Fund

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Criteria for allocating falling rolls funding should contain clear objective trigger points for qualification, and a clear formula for calculating allocations. Differences in allocation methodology are permitted between phases.

3.2 Compliant criteria would generally contain some of the features set out below:

• Support is available only for schools judged good or outstanding at their last Ofsted inspection (this is a mandatory requirement)

• Surplus capacity exceeds a minimum number of pupils, or a percentage of the published admission number

• Local planning data shows a requirement for a minimum percentage of the surplus places within the next three years

• Formula funding available to the school will not support provision of an appropriate curriculum for the existing cohort

• The school will need to make redundancies in order to contain spending within its formula budget

3.3 Methodologies for distributing funding could include:

2

29 • a rate per vacant place, up to a specified maximum number of places (place value likely to be based on AWPU)

• a lump sum payment with clear parameters for calculation (for example, the estimated cost of providing an appropriate curriculum, or estimated salary costs equivalent to the number of staff who would otherwise be made redundant)

3.4 Where falling rolls funding is payable to academies, the local authority should fund the increase for the period from the additional September intake through until the following August.

3.5 Local authorities should report any falling rolls funds remaining at the end of the financial year to the schools forum.

3.6 Funding may be carried forward to the following funding period, as with any other centrally retained budget, and local authorities can choose to use it specifically for falling rolls.

4. FALLING ROLLS PROPOSAL

4.1 A Falling Rolls Fund was established for 2019-20 to protect good schools who were experiencing large and sudden falls in their rolls. The Falling Rolls Fund supports schools that met the following criteria:

• Good or Outstanding

• Numbers on Roll are less than 80% of total Planned Admission Number (PAN)

• Numbers on Roll are more than 5% lower in the October 2018 census than the October 2017 census

• School is a planning area where the vacant places are required

4.2 These criteria have been set to ensure that funding supports good and outstanding schools with falling rolls in planning areas where places are needed and the LA cannot not support reductions in PAN; and does not support schools that have vacant places as they have increased their PAN for reasons other than addressing basic need.

4.3 Schools will receive protection for the fall in numbers above the 5% threshold. This will be paid at the current AWPU rate. For example, a school that experienced a drop from of 6.5% will receive AWPU for 1.5% of its previous intake.

3

30 4.4 Under the current criteria two schools would qualify for the Falling Rolls Fund. The amounts they would receive are shown in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1: FALLING ROLLS FUND 2020-21 WITHOUT CAPPING

Sybourn Primary St Joseph's School Catholic Infants A Total School Capacity 630 180 B Oct 2018 census 530 140 C Oct 2019 census 503 116 D (C-B) Fall in NOR -27 -24 E (D/A) Fall as % of NOR PY -5.1% -17.1% F (E-5%) Fall over 5% -0.1% -12.1% This amount over 5% of G (F x A) PAN 0.59 21.86 H AWPU (2019-20 rate) £3,573 £3,573 J (H x G) Falling Rolls Fund Support £2,124 £78,096 Total School Block as per G1 Model £2,488,084 £752,576 Percentage of SB allocation G1 Model 0.09% 10.38%

Total £80,219

*Note: Model G1 refers to approved model reported to Schools Forum 13 November 2019

4.5 The actual amount these schools would receive will vary once the 2020-21 AWPU rate has been set.

4.6 The proposed cap is as follows:

1st Year – No Capping

2nd Year - Capped at 5% of school’s post-MFG Schools Block Allocation

3rd Year - Capped at 2% of school’s post-MFG Schools Block Allocation

4th Year & Beyond – Cannot qualify for Falling Rolls Fund

4.7 If schools continue to face falling rolls for the second and third consecutive year funding for falling rolls will be capped at the levels above with the expectation that the school introduces measures to address the continuing drop in numbers.

4

31 4.8 If the capping proposal is approved the total cost of the fallings rolls fund would be £39,752, subject to a slight revision for 2020-21 AWPU figures. In 2020-21 this cap would solely apply to St Joseph’s Catholic Infants, as shown in Table 2:

TABLE 2: FALLING ROLLS FUND 2020- 21 WITH CAPPING

Sybourn St Joseph's Primary Catholic School Infants A Total School Capacity 630 180 B Oct 2018 census 530 140 C Oct 2019 census 503 116 D (C-B) Fall in NOR -27 -24 E (D/A) Fall as % of NOR PY -5.1% -17.1% F (E-5%) Fall over 5% -0.1% -12.1% This amount over 5% of G (F x A) PAN 0.59 21.86 H AWPU (2019-20 rate) £3,573 £3,573 Falling Rolls Fund J (H x G) Support £2,124 £37,629 Total School Block as per G1 Model £2,488,084 £752,576 Percentage of SB allocation G1 Model 0.09% 5.00%

Total £39,752

5

32 Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 5 11 December 2019 Report Title Local Funding Formula 2020-21

Decision/Discussion/ For Discussion and Decision by all Information Report Author/ Duncan James-Pike, Strategic Finance Advisor, Contact details 020 8496 3502 duncan,[email protected]

Appendices Appendix A: Indicative School Budgets 2020-21 Appendix B: Consultation documents

1. SUMMARY

1.1 On 13 November Schools Forum agreed that when Local Authority sets the 2020-21 School Budgets, the LA should aim to set the Local Funding Formula by: using National Funding Formula Factors; setting the MFG at 1.84%; and allocating any additional funding through Basic Entitlement (AWPU).

1.2 The indicative school budget allocations for 2020-21 using these parameters are attached as Appendix A. These indicative budgets are based on pupil numbers and characteristics from the October 2019 census.

1.2 A short consultation was run from 22 November to 29 November. The consultation documents can be found in Appendix B. The responses to Question 4 (Growth Fund) and Question 5 (High Needs) are within the relevant reports in this report pack.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Schools Forum to note:

2.1.1 The responses to the consultation supported Schools Forum’s decisions.

1

33 3. CONSULTATION RESULTS

3.1 There were 19 responses from a total of 13 schools and the responses are summarised below. Please note that one responder only answered question 2, causing the difference in total answers.

Q1. Should the National Funding Formula factors (with the exception of AWPU) be adopted in each phase?

YES 16

NO 2

Comments

We would support moving to NFF with the exception of AWPU in order to ease the transition to 2021.

The national funding formula has been delayed for the last 3 years so we believe it would be remiss of us to move over to a proposal that is not yet grounded in certainty. The funding stipulated has not been confirmed so we believe that it would not be in our best interests for us to move over to a structure that is not supported at the moment nor does it have the Minimum Funding Guarantee level agreed. We would only be happy to agree to 0.5% as otherwise the school could face a loss of £20, 000.

It would not be in our best interests for us to move over to a structure that is not supported at the moment nor does it have the Minimum Funding Guarantee level agreed. We would only be happy to agree to 0.5% as otherwise the school could face a loss of £20, 000.

The funding stipulated has not yet been confirmed so moving over to a structure that is not supported at the moment and doesn’t have the Minimum Funding Guarantee level agreed would not be in our best interests. We would only be happy to agree to 0.5% as otherwise the school could face a loss of circa £20,000.

Feel we have no alternative

In order to ensure consistency in funding across all local authorities

All schools should be aligned to the NFF so that funding is allocated in line with how we will likely be receiving allocations for 2

34 the 2021-22 financial year.

Meets current Schools Forum values – Stability, Fairness and openness

Q2. Should the Minimum Funding Guarantee be set at +1.84%?

YES 17

NO 2

Comments

We agree that this is the best model for the majority of schools to mitigate against losses.

No- we would only be happy with 0.5% as the other options would mean that as a school we would take a bigger hit in the budget we receive.

We do not feel that the funding should be set a +1.84 and would only agree to this if it was to be set at 0.5%.

We want the MFG set at 1.84% And any top slicing not to affect the MFG.

Some Schools need more support

This level applies a more consistent year on year increase (once pupil variation is discounted) for all schools and minimises the large gains and loses which will be less sustainable to manage for schools once the full NFF is implemented. It is better all schools have increases to their delegated income in a sustainable way rather than extreme outliers significantly ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ in the process.

Meets current Schools Forum values – Stability, Fairness and openness

3

35 Q3. Should the whole of any increase in funding be added to the Basic Entitlement – Age Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU)?

YES 18

NO 0

Comments

This would be the fairest and more equitable way of distributing this.

Some Schools need more support

For fairness

This is the fairest approach to ensure funding is targeted at all students. Schools in recent years have had to make difficult decisions on cutting core resource expenditure so it is important we are able to see increases in the area of general resources rather than one particular cohort of student getting a disproportionate amount of funding attributed to them which varies quite considerably depending on which part of the LA the school’s catchment sits within.

Meets current Schools Forum values – Stability, Fairness and openness

4

36 LFF APPENDIX A INDICATIVE 2020-21 BUDGETS

2019-20 Post 2020-21 Post Increase on 2019-Increase on 2019- School Name MFG Budget MFG Budget 20 £ 20 % £198,693,473 £202,135,191 £3,441,719 1.73% Chase Lane Primary School £3,179,810.61 £3,234,002.36 £54,191.75 1.70% Whitehall Primary School £1,920,273.51 £1,952,232.48 £31,958.96 1.66% Downsell Primary School £2,838,987.00 £2,887,512.81 £48,525.81 1.71% Newport School £3,461,993.28 £3,522,509.68 £60,516.40 1.75% Chapel End and Early Years Centre £1,201,868.50 £1,220,217.76 £18,349.26 1.53% Edinburgh Primary School £2,445,590.35 £2,486,012.71 £40,422.36 1.65% Greenleaf Primary School £1,845,596.86 £1,876,791.11 £31,194.25 1.69% Handsworth Primary School £1,755,800.25 £1,785,430.41 £29,630.16 1.69% Thorpe Hall Primary School £1,984,392.51 £2,017,589.23 £33,196.73 1.67% The Winns Primary School £3,315,018.50 £3,372,742.68 £57,724.18 1.74% Woodford Green Primary School £902,494.23 £916,465.51 £13,971.28 1.55% Oakhill Primary School £1,017,597.18 £1,033,695.19 £16,098.01 1.58% Henry Maynard Primary School £3,534,400.36 £3,595,679.28 £61,278.93 1.73% South Grove Primary School £2,165,145.69 £2,200,879.61 £35,733.92 1.65% Dawlish Primary School £938,252.89 £952,851.22 £14,598.33 1.56% Gwyn Jones Primary School £1,738,013.55 £1,767,352.12 £29,338.57 1.69% George Tomlinson Primary School £2,101,722.52 £2,137,130.84 £35,408.33 1.68% Mission Grove Primary School £3,343,407.29 £3,401,443.93 £58,036.64 1.74% Coppermill Primary School £1,179,315.64 £1,198,107.58 £18,791.95 1.59% Stoneydown Park School £2,292,890.16 £2,331,950.69 £39,060.53 1.70% Parkside Primary School £2,459,008.42 £2,501,429.47 £42,421.04 1.73% The Jenny Hammond Primary School £1,446,146.32 £1,469,716.43 £23,570.11 1.63% Ainslie Wood Primary School £1,858,029.30 £1,888,861.06 £30,831.76 1.66% Barn Croft Primary School £995,305.03 £1,010,804.32 £15,499.29 1.56% Chingford CofE Primary School £1,742,995.00 £1,772,672.05 £29,677.05 1.70% St Mary's Catholic Primary School £949,890.90 £965,030.05 £15,139.15 1.59% St Joseph's Catholic £971,456.94 £986,972.80 £15,515.86 1.60% St Joseph's Catholic Infant School £741,292.57 £752,575.67 £11,283.10 1.52% Our Lady and St George's Catholic Primary School £1,812,484.27 £1,843,422.71 £30,938.44 1.71% St Patrick's Catholic Primary School £1,845,850.80 £1,877,389.02 £31,538.22 1.71% Frederick Bremer School £6,026,905.05 £6,130,984.20 £104,079.15 1.73% Heathcote School & Science College £6,124,670.85 £6,230,400.31 £105,729.47 1.73% Willowfield School £5,520,888.17 £5,615,434.73 £94,546.56 1.71% £5,063,522.66 £5,151,637.65 £88,114.99 1.74% Walthamstow School for Girls £5,471,318.99 £5,565,418.65 £94,099.65 1.72% Kelmscott School £5,306,276.15 £5,399,173.79 £92,897.64 1.75% Holy Family Catholic School £5,790,822.23 £5,894,645.76 £103,823.53 1.79% Buxton School £7,525,679.09 £7,660,552.38 £134,873.29 1.79% Lime Academy Larkswood £2,907,963.48 £2,958,794.25 £50,830.77 1.75% Yardley Primary School £1,878,948.61 £1,911,076.96 £32,128.34 1.71% Davies Lane Primary School £3,503,087.90 £3,565,017.39 £61,929.49 1.77% Hillyfield Primary Academy £5,700,609.82 £5,802,742.68 £102,132.86 1.79% Emmanuel Community School £932,857.63 £947,668.70 £14,811.07 1.59% Willow Brook Primary School Academy £2,396,022.56 £2,437,624.47 £41,601.92 1.74% The Woodside Primary Academy £4,653,522.77 £4,736,440.87 £82,918.10 1.78% Chapel End Junior Academy £1,562,904.21 £1,589,200.35 £26,296.14 1.68% Riverley Primary School £2,054,486.43 £2,089,768.21 £35,281.78 1.72% Sybourn Primary School £2,445,525.71 £2,488,083.79 £42,558.08 1.74% Thomas Gamuel Primary School £1,667,065.10 £1,695,303.28 £28,238.18 1.69% Walthamstow Primary Academy £591,879.60 £600,258.53 £8,378.93 1.42% Longshaw Primary School £1,451,014.38 £1,475,295.03 £24,280.64 1.67% Roger Ascham Primary School £2,003,984.78 £2,038,418.51 £34,433.73 1.72% Chingford Hall Primary School £1,574,746.11 £1,601,292.23 £26,546.12 1.69% Whittingham Primary Academy £1,831,867.54 £1,863,073.90 £31,206.36 1.70% Mayville Primary School £1,669,348.45 £1,697,514.10 £28,165.65 1.69% St Saviour's Church of Primary School £1,524,467.10 £1,550,058.82 £25,591.73 1.68% St Mary's CofE Primary School £2,432,561.14 £2,474,860.85 £42,299.71 1.74% Barclay Primary School £4,988,862.88 £5,077,802.18 £88,939.30 1.78% Selwyn Primary School £2,543,186.76 £2,587,553.16 £44,366.40 1.74% South Chingford Foundation School £3,346,163.52 £3,404,958.25 £58,794.73 1.76% Eden Girls' School Waltham Forest £3,387,687.31 £3,447,386.05 £59,698.73 1.76% Connaught School for Girls £3,730,281.26 £3,796,388.94 £66,107.69 1.77% Norlington School and 6th Form £3,836,591.44 £3,904,629.83 £68,038.39 1.77% £6,739,707.52 £6,860,576.37 £120,868.85 1.79% Chingford Foundation School £7,225,037.59 £7,354,944.02 £129,906.43 1.80% £5,530,583.16 £5,629,177.15 £98,594.00 1.78% and Sixth Form £4,876,441.61 £4,963,180.63 £86,739.02 1.78% £4,890,952.53 £4,978,383.40 £87,430.87 1.79%

37 Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 6 11 December 2019 Report Title Services for Maintained Schools 2020-2021

Decision/Discussion/ For Discussion and Decision by maintained primary, Information secondary, special and pupil referral units (PRUs) only Report Author/ Duncan James-Pike, Strategic Finance Advisor, Contact details 020 8496 3502 duncan,[email protected]

Appendices Appendix A: Responsibilities local authorities hold for maintained schools Appendix B: Illustration of the de-delegation from each maintained school 2020-21

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report requests that maintained schools continue the agreement to de- delegate funding for services that they cannot perform themselves such as preparing annual consolidated accounts and performance information; pensions administration; and health and safety and asset management responsibilities.

1.2 Academies are required to perform these functions for themselves or pay their MATs to do so for them.

1.2 LAs can fund some services relating to maintained schools only from maintained school budget shares with the agreement of maintained school members of the Schools Forum.

1.3 The relevant maintained school members of the Schools Forum: primary, secondary, special and pupil referral units (PRUs), should agree the amount the local authority will retain.

3.3 If the LA and Schools Forum are unable to reach a consensus on the amount to be retained by the local authority, the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Maintained School members of Schools Forum to note:

2.1.1 No change is proposed to the agreement between maintained schools and the Local Authority that maintained schools contribute towards the cost of functions that they cannot perform for themselves.

1

38 2.1.2 If the LA and Schools Forum are unable to reach a consensus on the amount to be retained by the local authority, the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State.

2.2 Maintained School members of Schools Forum to agree :

2.2.1 To de-delegate the same amount in 2020-21 as in 2018-19 and 2019-20: £19.78 per pupil for maintained schools and per place for the maintained special school and PRU.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Education Services Grant Exit Strategy

3.1.1 The Education Services Grant received by the local authority for 2016-17 was £2.6 million. This grant ceased in 2017-18. It comprised two elements: Retained Duties (for all schools and academies) funded at £15 per pupil and General Duties (for maintained schools only) funded at £77 per mainstream pupil and significantly more per place for the PRU and maintained special school.

3.1.2 The Retained Duties funding was transferred to the Dedicated Schools Grant and now forms part of the Central School Services Block (CSSB) but the General Duties funding ceased.

3.1.3 The cessation of the ESG appeared to be linked to a proposed Education White Paper that was to redefine the relationship between schools and local authorities, but this never came about, and the statutory responsibilities of the local authority have not reduced although the funding for them was removed.

3.1.4 In 2017-18 Schools Forum agreed an ESG exit strategy with the LA which included maintained schools de-delegating £19.78 per pupil towards the costs of services that they cannot perform themselves (such as preparing annual consolidated accounts and performance information; pensions administration; and health and safety and asset management responsibilities); and the LA ensuring that services are supported by dealing with the remaining shortfall through its Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

3.1.5 The LA proposes that maintained schools continue their commitment to de- delegate £19.78 per pupil towards the costs of services that they cannot perform themselves, the same amount as in 2018-19 and 2019-20. This compares to the £77 per pupil lost when the ESG ceased.

3.1.6 De-delegation of £19.78 per pupil is estimated to be less than 0.45% of any maintained school’s budget share which compares very favourably with the 5% top-slice common in MATs.

2

39 3.1.7 The list of responsibilities local authorities hold for maintained schools that may be funded from maintained school budgets with agreement of the maintained school members of the Schools Forum is attached as Appendix A.

3.1.8 An illustration of the amount resulting from the de-delegation by each maintained school in 2020-21 is attached as Appendix B. These figures will be updated when the DFE releases the 2020-21 APT with the October 2019 census and the budget allocations for 2020-21 are confirmed.

3.2 Methodology permitted

3.2.1 LAs should set a single rate per 5 to 16-year-old pupil for all mainstream maintained schools, both primary and secondary; in the interests of simplicity, this should be deducted from basic entitlement funding.

3.2.2 No adjustments are allowed to other factors, and the rate will not include early years or post-16 pupils, who are funded through different formulae.

3.2.3 LAs can choose to establish differential rates for special schools and PRUs, if the cost of fulfilling the duty is substantially different for these schools. The rate will be expressed per-place rather than per-pupil for special schools and PRUs.

3.2.4 As with de-delegation, the amount to be held by the local authority will be determined after MFG has been applied.

3.2.5 Services can also include administrative costs and overheads relating to these services for:

• Expenditure related to functions imposed by or under Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the 1998 Act (financing of maintained schools), the administration of grants to the authority (including preparation of applications) and, where it’s the authority’s duty to do so, ensuring payments are made in respect of taxation, national insurance and superannuation contributions

• Expenditure on recruitment, training, continuing professional development, performance management and personnel management of staff who are funded by expenditure not met from schools’ budget shares and who are paid for services

• Expenditure in relation to the investigation and resolution of complaints

• Expenditure on legal services.

3

40 3.3 Schools that convert to academy status

3.3.1 If a school converts to academy status, the ESFA will recoup the amount retained for that school from the local authority’s DSG for the remaining months of the financial year that the school is an academy.

3.3.2 The academy will be reimbursed in its monthly general annual grant (GAG) payment from the point of conversion.

3.3.3 Unlike for de-delegated services, there will be no phased transfer of funding following conversion so there will be immediate recoupment of this part of the budget.

3.3.4 For example: if a school converts on 1 January 2021 (three months prior to the end of the financial year), ESFA will recoup three twelfths of the retained amount relating to that school.

4

41 APPENIDX A Responsibilities held for maintained schools only From the Schools Revenue Funding Operational Guide, September 2019 Statutory and regulatory duties • Functions of LA related to best value and provision of advice to governing bodies in procuring goods and services (Sch 2, 57)

• Budgeting and accounting functions relating to maintained schools (Sch 2, 74)

• Authorisation and monitoring of expenditure in respect of schools which do not have delegated budgets, and related financial administration (Sch 2, 58)

• Monitoring of compliance with requirements in relation to the scheme for financing schools and the provision of community facilities by governing bodies (Sch 2, 59)

• Internal audit and other tasks related to the authority’s chief finance officer’s responsibilities under Section 151 of LGA 1972 for maintained schools (Sch 2, 60)

• Functions made under Section 44 of the 2002 Act (Consistent Financial Reporting) (Sch 2, 61)

• Investigations of employees or potential employees, with or without remuneration to work at or for schools under the direct management of the headteacher or governing body (Sch 2, 62)

• Functions related to local government pensions and administration of teachers’ pensions in relation to staff working at maintained schools under the direct management of the headteacher or governing body (Sch 2, 63)

• Retrospective membership of pension schemes where it would not be appropriate to expect a school to meet the cost (Sch 2, 76)

• HR duties, including: advice to schools on the management of staff, pay alterations, conditions of service and composition or organisation of staff (Sch 2, 64); determination of conditions of service for non-teaching staff (Sch 2, 65); appointment or dismissal of employee functions (Sch 2, 66)

• Consultation costs relating to staffing (Sch 2, 67)

• Compliance with duties under Health and Safety at Work Act (Sch 2, 68)

• Provision of information to or at the request of the Crown relating to schools (Sch 2, 69)

42 • School companies (Sch 2, 70)

• Functions under the Equality Act 2010 (Sch 2, 71)

• Establish and maintaining computer systems, including data storage (Sch 2, 72)

• Appointment of governors and payment of governor expenses (Sch 2, 73)

Education welfare • Inspection of attendance registers (Sch 2, 79)

Asset management • General landlord duties for all maintained schools (Sch 2, 77a & b (section 542(2)) Education Act 1996; School Premises Regulations 2012) to ensure that school buildings have: o appropriate facilities for pupils and staff (including medical and accommodation)

o the ability to sustain appropriate loads

o reasonable weather resistance

o safe escape routes

o appropriate acoustic levels

o lighting, heating and ventilation which meets the required standards

o adequate water supplies and drainage

o playing fields of the appropriate standards

• General health and safety duty as an employer for employees and others who may be affected (Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974) • Management of the risk from asbestos in community school buildings (Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012)

43 APPENDIX B: ILLUSTRATION OF DE-DELEGATION FROM MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

NOR De-delegation INDICATIVE School Name (October 2018 at £19.78 per 2020-21 Post De-delegation Census) pupil MFG Budget % Chase Lane Primary School 624.00 £12,343 £3,234,002 0.38% Whitehall Primary School 422.00 £8,347 £1,952,232 0.43% Downsell Primary School 525.00 £10,385 £2,887,513 0.36% Newport School 792.00 £15,666 £3,522,510 0.44% Chapel End Infant School and Early Years Centre 229.00 £4,530 £1,220,218 0.37% Edinburgh Primary School 518.00 £10,246 £2,486,013 0.41% Greenleaf Primary School 412.00 £8,149 £1,876,791 0.43% Handsworth Primary School 414.00 £8,189 £1,785,430 0.46% Thorpe Hall Primary School 429.00 £8,486 £2,017,589 0.42% The Winns Primary School 728.00 £14,400 £3,372,743 0.43% Oakhill Primary School 226.00 £4,470 £1,033,695 0.43% Henry Maynard Primary School 817.00 £16,160 £3,595,679 0.45% South Grove Primary School 408.00 £8,070 £2,200,880 0.37% Dawlish Primary School 188.00 £3,719 £952,851 0.39% Gwyn Jones Primary School 397.00 £7,853 £1,767,352 0.44% George Tomlinson Primary School 457.00 £9,039 £2,137,131 0.42% Mission Grove Primary School 742.00 £14,677 £3,401,444 0.43% Coppermill Primary School 249.00 £4,925 £1,198,108 0.41% Stoneydown Park School 495.00 £9,791 £2,331,951 0.42% Parkside Primary School 532.00 £10,523 £2,501,429 0.42% The Jenny Hammond Primary School 312.00 £6,171 £1,469,716 0.42% Ainslie Wood Primary School 406.00 £8,031 £1,888,861 0.43% Barn Croft Primary School 199.00 £3,936 £1,010,804 0.39% Chingford CofE Primary School 403.00 £7,971 £1,772,672 0.45% St Mary's Catholic Primary School 216.00 £4,272 £965,030 0.44% St Joseph's Catholic Junior School 207.00 £4,094 £986,973 0.41% St Joseph's Catholic Infant School 140.00 £2,769 £752,576 0.37% Our Lady and St George's Catholic Primary School 401.00 £7,932 £1,843,423 0.43% St Patrick's Catholic Primary School 409.00 £8,090 £1,877,389 0.43% Frederick Bremer School 867.00 £17,149 £6,130,984 0.28% Heathcote School & Science College 912.00 £18,039 £6,230,400 0.29% Willowfield School 872.00 £17,248 £5,615,435 0.31% Leytonstone School 830.00 £16,417 £5,151,638 0.32% Walthamstow School for Girls 894.00 £17,683 £5,565,419 0.32% Kelmscott School 828.00 £16,378 £5,399,174 0.30% Holy Family Catholic School 964.00 £19,068 £5,894,646 0.32% Buxton School 1,392.00 £27,534 £7,660,552 0.36% £392,752

Estimated PLACES Budget Belmont Park 57.00 £1,127 £913,095 0.12% PRU 72.00 £1,424 1,029,000 0.14%

44 Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 7 11 December 2019 Report Title Central School Services Block 2020-21

Decision/Discussion/ For Discussion and Decision by all Information Report Author/ Duncan James-Pike, Strategic Finance Advisor, Contact details 020 8496 3502 duncan,[email protected]

Appendices Appendix A: Responsibilities local authorities hold for all Schools Appendix B: CSSB 2018-19 to 2020-21

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report requests that Schools Forum agrees to allocate the Central Schools Services Block as proposed below.

1.2 The National Funding Formula for central school services provides funding for local authorities to carry out central functions on behalf of compulsory school age pupils in maintained schools and academies in England. It funds ongoing responsibilities which all local authorities must deliver for all pupils in maintained schools and academies.

1.3 These central functions were supported by the Education Services Grant paid to the LA but the funding has been transferred to the CSSB.

1.4 No change is proposed to the agreement between Schools Forum and the Local Authority that Schools Forum pass-port Retained Duties funding back to the LA for the LA’s statutory duties to all schools and academies.

1.5 The expected value of the CSSB for 2020-21 is £1.474 million from which the DFE will deduct at least £218,000 for copyright licenses, leaving £1.256 million available potentially.

1.6 The remaining £1.256 million is for funding Retained Duties, the Admissions service and support to Schools Forum only.

1

45 2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Shools Forum to agree to retain centrally the remaining £1.256 million of the CSSB and allocate as follows (subject to final confirmation from the EFSA of the size of the CSSB and the copyright licences top-slice in 2020-21):

2.1.1 Admissions: £745,000

2.1.2 Retained Duties: £474,250

2.1.3 Support to Schools Forum: £37,550

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The Schools revenue funding 2020 to 2021 Operational guide states that responsibilities held by local authorities for all schools are funded from the central schools services block, with the agreement of schools forums.

3.2 Schools Forum approval is required each year to confirm the amounts on each line.

3.3 The CSSB is the fourth funding block in the Dedicated Schools Grant, the others being the Schools, Early Years and High Needs Blocks. The CSSB was introduced in 2018- 2019 to fund local authorities for the statutory duties that they hold for both maintained schools and academies.

3.4 The CSSB comprises funding for:

• The LA’s Retained Duties, previously funded by the Education Services Grant (ESG) before it was abolished;

• Copyright Licences previously top-sliced from the Schools Block by the DFE;

• The Admissions Service previously funded from the Schools Block;

• Support to Schools Forum administration previously funded by the Schools, Early Years and High Needs Blocks; and

• Residual funding for historic commitments, previously top-sliced from the Schools Block (none in Waltham Forest)

3.5 The duties included in the CSSB are set out in Appendix A.

4. Education Services Grant (ESG) Exit strategy

4.1 The Education Services Grant received by the local authority for 2016-17 was £2.6 million. This grant ceased in 2017-18. It comprised two elements:

2

46 Retained Duties (for all schools and academies) funded at £15 per pupil and General Duties (for maintained schools only).

4.2 £623,000 from the ESG was transferred to the Dedicated Schools Grant and now forms part of the Central School Services Block (CSSB).

4.3 The cessation of the ESG appeared to be linked to a proposed Education White Paper that was to redefine the relationship between schools and local authorities, but this never came about, and the statutory responsibilities of the local authority have not reduced although the funding for them was largely removed.

4.4 In 2017-18 Schools Forum agreed an ESG exit strategy which included Schools Forum pass-porting the Retained Duties funding back to the LA for the LA’s statutory duties to all schools and academies and the LA dealing with the remaining shortfall through its Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

4.5 The LA proposes that Schools Forum continues its commitment to pass- porting Retained Duties funding back to the LA for the LA’s statutory duties to all schools and academies which had been transferred to the CSSB.

5 Reductions to the CSSB since 2018-19

5.1 Appendix B shows the allocation of the CSSB since 2018-19. Funding for ongoing responsibilities includes a protection to ensure no LA sees losses of greater than 2.5% per pupil, compared to 2019-20 however the impact of increases to the Copyright Licence fees, set by the DFE and top-sliced from the CSSB, have increased the reduction in funding for the other services. Copyright Licence fees have risen from £175,000 in 2018-19 to £218,000 in 2019-20 and worsen the reduction in funding received since 2018 from £108,800 (7%) to £166,800 (12%).

5.2 To date, Schools Forum has agreed to protect the funding for Admissions as this is a critical front-line service to parents and pupils. The reduction in the funding allocation (and the reduction in actual funding) has been applied only to the Retained Duties element but in 2020-21 the funding for support to Schools Forum is proposed to reduce also.

6 Regulations

6..1 Where local authorities hold duties in relation to all schools (as set out in Schedule 2, Parts 1 to 5 of the School and Early Years Finance Regulations 2017), all schools must be treated on an equivalent basis.

3

47 6.2 Local authorities should not be treating voluntary aided schools, foundation schools, or academies, differently from maintained schools in the services they provide to them; this is set out in the DSG conditions of grant.

6.3 Schools such as voluntary aided schools, foundation schools, and academies, cannot therefore be charged for services that are provided free of charge to community and voluntary controlled schools, and paid for out of the centrally held DSG.

6.4 This does not include funding that has been retained centrally from maintained school budgets only (as set out in Schedule 2, Parts 6 and 7), where some statutory duties relate to community and voluntary controlled schools only. However, in these situations’ authorities should not charge voluntary aided and foundation schools if requested to provide services to these schools and where there is no charge to community and voluntary controlled schools for the same service.

6.5 Services will also include administrative costs and overheads relating to these services (regulation 1(4)) for:

• Expenditure related to functions imposed by or under Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the 1998 Act (financing of maintained schools), the administration of grants to the authority (including preparation of applications) and, where it’s the authority’s duty to do so, ensuring payments are made in respect of taxation, national insurance and superannuation contributions;

• Expenditure on recruitment, training, continuing professional development, performance management and personnel management of staff who are funded by expenditure not met from schools’ budget shares and who are paid for services;

• Expenditure in relation to the investigation and resolution of complaints; and

• Expenditure on legal services.

4

48 APPENDIX A Responsibilities held for all schools From Schools Revenue Funding 2020-21 Operational Guide. September 2019 Statutory and regulatory duties • Director of children’s services and personal staff for director (Sch 2, 15a)

• Planning for the education service as a whole (Sch 2, 15b)

• Revenue budget preparation, preparation of information on income and expenditure relating to education, and external audit relating to education (Sch 2, 22)

• Authorisation and monitoring of expenditure not met from schools’ budget shares (Sch 2, 15c)

• Formulation and review of local authority schools funding formula (Sch 2, 15d)

• Internal audit and other tasks related to the authority’s chief finance officer’s responsibilities under Section 151 of LGA 1972 except duties specifically related to maintained schools (Sch 2, 15e)

• Consultation costs relating to non-staffing issues (Sch 2, 19)

• Plans involving collaboration with other LA services or public or voluntary bodies (Sch 2, 15f)

• Standing Advisory Committees for Religious Education (SACREs) (Sch 2, 17)

• Provision of information to or at the request of the Crown other than relating specifically to maintained schools (Sch 2, 21)

Education welfare • Functions in relation to the exclusion of pupils from schools, excluding any provision of education to excluded pupils (Sch 2, 20)

• School attendance (Sch 2, 16)

• Responsibilities regarding the employment of children (Sch 2, 18)

Asset management • Management of the LA’s capital programme including preparation and review of an asset management plan, and negotiation and management of private finance transactions (Sch 2, 14a) • General landlord duties for all buildings owned by the local authority, including those leased to academies (Sch 2, 14b)

49 Other ongoing duties • Licences negotiated centrally by the Secretary of State for all publicly funded schools (Sch 2, 8); this does not require schools forum approval

• Admissions (Sch 2, 9)

• Places in independent schools for non-SEN pupils (Sch 2, 10)

• Remission of boarding fees at maintained schools and academies (Sch 2, 11)

• Servicing of schools forums (Sch 2, 12)

• Back-pay for equal pay claims (Sch 2, 13)

• Writing to parents of year 9 pupils about schools with an atypical age of admission, such as UTCs and studio schools, within a reasonable travelling distance (Sch 2, 23)

Historic commitments (None in Waltham Forest)

• Capital expenditure funded from revenue (Sch 2, 1)

• Prudential borrowing costs (Sch 2, 2(a))

• Termination of employment costs (Sch 2, 2(b))

• Contribution to combined budgets (Sch 2, 2(c))

50 CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICES BLOCK APPENDIX B

Reduction Reduction in funding in funding 2018-19 to 2018-19 to Initial Actual Initial Revised Initial 2020- 2020-21 2020-22 Service 2018-19 2018-19 2019-20 2019-20 21 £ % Schools Forum (Finance) £32,000 £32,000 £32,000 £32,000 £32,000 Schools Forum (Clerking) £24,000 £24,000 £24,000 £24,000 £4,350 Schools Forum (Refreshments) £1,200 Subtotal Schools Forum £56,000 £56,000 £56,000 £56,000 £37,550 Admissions £745,000 £745,000 £745,000 £745,000 £745,000 Retained duties £623,000 £578,000 £539,000 £492,000 £474,250 Subtotal available to Council £1,424,000 £1,379,000 £1,340,000 £1,293,000 £1,256,800 -£167,200 -12% Copyright Licences £160,000 £175,000 £175,000 £218,000 £218,000 £58,000 36% TOTAL £1,584,000 £1,554,000 £1,515,000 £1,511,000 £1,474,800 -£109,200 -7%

51 Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 11 December 2019 Report Title Paper from SEND Crisis

Decision/Discussion/ For Consideration and Discussion by all Information Appendices 1. Paper from SEND Crisis

2. Statement from the London Borough of Waltham Forest

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The appended paper has been submitted on behalf of Waltham Forest SEND Crisis with a request that it is put before Schools Forum so that Schools Forum may take their representations into account before giving its own response to the consultation.

1.2 The information contained within the paper is not endorsed by the Local Authority, has not been checked for factual accuracy by the Local Authority and does not represent the Local Authority’s position or views. The Local Authority has made a statement in response to the submissions contained in the paper requiring a response. A copy of that response is appended also.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Schools Forum to note the contents of the paper and the statement from the Local Authority.

1

52 Waltham Forest SEND Crisis: Report on Proposed Cuts to SEND funding

The Issue: Cuts to SEND Funding While we welcome the fact that the Council has now decided not to back its previously proposed and deeply flawed plan (Model A), and the fact that it now acknowledges ‘The current system of allocating funding through the Education Health Care Plans (EHCPs) is in need of a comprehensive review since it is based on data, practice and contextual statistics from nearly ten years ago’ and that it will be establishing a working group ‘to complete a system-wide evaluation of processes … [that] would encompass review of protocols, pathways and the systems for banding/resource levels’ a number of grave concerns remain. These include both the contents of the newly proposed Model B, and the consultation process more generally.

If the proposed cuts are allowed to come into effect – whether in the form of Model A or Model B they will have a potentially devastating financial impact on schools in the borough, and by extension, the children who attend those schools. This comes amid a context of severe cuts to other services affecting SEND children and their families (including early years intervention, portage, and hospital and home teaching), and ongoing issues regarding the issuing by the Council of non-specific and unquantified EHCPs (thereby denying families the legal protection and enforceability such plans are supposed to provide), and EHCPs attached to inadequate levels of funding (e.g. Band E rather than Band F).

In a recent High Court Judgement in which cuts to SEND funding proposed by Bristol City Council were quashed, the court noted that the Council’s ‘decision-making process appears to be driven entirely from the standpoint of ensuring a balanced budget by 2020/21.’ Sadly, we believe the same applies in the case of Waltham Forest’s decision-making process. There are multiple references throughout the consultation document (e.g. “There is still a budget deficit and a need for the Council to consider making changes to the banding model in order to bring about the aim that a balanced budget in HNB is achieved for 2020-2021.”) that indicate the Council’s objective is to meet budgetary requirements rather than meet the needs of children in the borough.

Perhaps the crucial point to highlight here is that, given the Council has now acknowledged that a ‘system-wide evaluation of processes’ and ‘multi agency review of banding’ is necessary, surely the logical conclusion to draw is that this should take place before any changes to banding are made (it is worth noting that had the Council instigated this at the outset of the consultation six months ago, this could have been well underway). At present, the Council seems to have no real knowledge of the level of need in the Borough (either for those with EHCPs or those without) – meaningful research and impact assessment needs to be conducted in order to gather such knowledge. Without it, any proposed cuts have no basis in addressing the needs of children, and are simply stabs in the dark aimed at balancing the budget. We believe this is reckless, unlawful, and has the potential to inflict long-term damage on vulnerable children.

How Parents are Responding Waltham Forest SEND Crisis is a grassroots organisation of around 300 parents, residents, and sympathetic supporters currently engaged with fighting the Council over these plans. We recently launched a successful crowdfunding campaign to raise money for legal advice regarding the proposed cuts and the consultation process. Our initial advice from Irwin Mitchell, one of the country’s leading law firms engaged in fighting SEND cases, strongly suggests that the consultation process pursued by the Council is unlawful. Therefore, should the Council persist in taking forward the cuts set out in the consultation, we anticipate taking the matter to Judicial Review.

Potential Impacts The potential impacts of the cuts for children, families and schools are manifold and potentially devastating. If children cannot access the assistance they are legally entitled to, then the effects will not be felt in terms of the next school year, but for generations to come. While the likely impacts are too numerous to list in detail here, the following three quotes are illustrative of the 1

53 potential damage long-term damage that will be caused if the cuts are allowed to proceed.

The first quote comes from the Parents Forum Facebook page (the parent in question has given me permission to reproduce it):

'Today I had meeting with our SenCo and I was told that if my daughter don't get higher level funding for September (now she is level E) the school won't be able to meet her needs anymore, because of the cuts and the next step will be special school.'

The second quote was given by a parent involved in the campaign group:

“We had a meeting with the school today – after being told our autistic son would need a 121 teaching assistant to cope in year 1, the school are anticipating the impending funding cuts and we have been told the best they can do for us is a 1 to 2 teaching assistant. My son is coping well in the autism provision, but I fear diluting down support now could mean that he can only stay in a mainstream school for so long. I fear that the progress he has been making with his learning in reception may be set back.”

Meanwhile, Whitefield’s special school stated the following in its Parents' Newsletter:

'You will have appreciated that all schools have been challenged financially and our Academy is no exception. The reality of the financial cuts to our schools is beginning to bite hard. The Local Authority, Waltham Forest, proposes cuts to our funding of 1.5% next academic year and a further cut of 1.5% the following year. At the same time numbers in the schools have been capped. Alongside this, costs to run the schools have gone up significantly. … Cuts will affect the Academy in the future and could mean reductions in: • Staffing • School Clubs and Holiday Clubs • Curriculum: through fewer visits out of school • Therapy: including support, speech, music and occupational therapy.’

Essentially, we are faced with a situation where children with complex needs will be forced out of mainstream schools, and sent to special schools. However, these special schools themselves have capped numbers and reduced funding. This is a recipe for disaster and widespread school exclusion. Ultimately, we will be failing the most vulnerable children in Waltham Forest.

Botched Consultation The consultation process has been long, draw out, badly organised and badly communicated. Issues related to the previous phases of the consultation have already been raised. In terms of the current phase of the consultation, we would highlight the following points (quotes are taken from the consultation document sent out to parents):

1. Parents are still struggling to understand the consultation document – parents have said ‘I don't understand a word of it’ and described it as ‘incomprehensible gobbledegook’ online. In the original consultation, four public meetings were arranged to explain what was then the proposed model (which is now the ‘rejected’ Model A). Given an entirely new model is now being proposed, it is unclear why no public meetings were arranged to explain it to parents. 2. The information the Council has provided about the ‘other options’ to meet the shortfall (for example, meeting the budget deficit through the use of Council reserves, or allocating funding from alternative Council budgets) is insufficient to allow parents to make an informed choice on them. Furthermore, the consultation document and questionnaire makes clear that the Council is seeking parents’ views specifically on Models A and B and not on these ‘other options’ – this means most consultees will not know that they can provide their views on the other options. This means the consultation is both misleading and unlawful. 3. It is not clear from the consultation document on what basis, under Model A or Model B, the Council states that it is ‘possible for Waltham Forest’s schools to absorb the changes proposed 2

54 in these levels, without reducing or putting at risk the special educational provision of individual children.’ We call on the Council to provide clarification and supporting evidence to back up this baseless assertion. 4. Re: the Council’s assertion that it has ‘carried out sample research around the provision for children receiving “E band” funding.’ As far as we are aware, all sample research has been carried out on E Band EHCPs, reflecting the original plan (Model A) to significantly cut Band E. No research or sampling appears to have been conducted on Band F EHCPs, which under the new recommended Model (B) will be subject to a 10% cut. Therefore, we argue that the consultations assertions that ‘As part of these proposals the LA has carried out sampling exercises across a range of existing EHCPs’ and ‘Both proposals have been examined through the sampling of EHCPs chosen at random from the current population’ are actively misleading. Furthermore, given these proposed cuts, we argue that it is a prerequisite that research and impact assessments must be carried out into Band F EHCPs if the decision taken is to reflect need, rather than budget. 5. Re: ‘It is, we believe, possible for Waltham Forest’s schools to absorb the changes proposed in these levels, without reducing or putting at risk the special educational provision of individual children.’ and re: Model A ‘The proposed funding amounts in this model we believe more closely reflect the exact levels of provision required to meet the needs identified within the EHCPs that have been reviewed. This has been supported by our review of a sample of current EHCP provision.’ The Council’s originally proposed model (Model A) reduced Band E top-up funding to £5k, whereas the new Model B reduces it to £7.85k. It is difficult to understand why in the original instance the Council said £5k would be sufficient based on its research, whereas it is now proposing £7.85k. In recommending Model B, is the Council saying Model A’s £5k is insufficient (which contradicts the quote above)? Or if it does think Model A’s £5k is sufficient, is it saying that Model B’s £7.85k is excessive? Furthermore, the stated rationale given by the Council for the originally proposed Model A was that Band F contained the ‘most vulnerable’ children and therefore the level of top-up funding should be protected. However, it is now proposing a 10% cut in funding – it is unlclear what has changed in the interim for the original rationale to be disregarded, especially given, as mentioned above, no research or sampling appears to have been performed on Band F EHCPs 6. As has previously been pointed out to the Council, the comparisons drawn between Waltham Forest and neighbouring boroughs are not “like for like” comparisons. Amongst other issues, these comparisons are based on very simplistic max. and min. spends by council, and contain no averages, frequency per band or information about alternative spend on centralised services. Director of Learning David Kilgallon reported in a consultation meeting that he couldn’t get hold of this information. We argue that if such information is ‘unavailable’, comparisons between councils becomes meaningless, and the justification of comparative spending illegitimate. 7. re: ‘An accumulated deficit of £5.3 million is at risk of breaching the ESFA’s threshold of 1% of the total Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and the Local Authority would be required to report to the ESFA on its plans for bringing the DSG back into balance.’ As reported in the TES: ‘32 local authorities were told to submit the recovery plans after ending 2018-19 with a cumulative deficit of 1 per cent or more in their main schools’ budget … The plans were supposed to show how they would eliminate the deficits within three years. But 29 out of the 32 told the DfE that this was impossible.’ The threat of having to report to the ESFA has been a key driver of the Council’s claim that it is required to make cuts. Given that 29 out of 32 Councils required to do this have simply responded it is impossible, we argue that rather than implementing damaging and unlawful cuts, Waltham Forest Council should stand with parents and schools in making this case to central government. 8. Re: ‘It is proposed that Special Schools and Schools Forum should agree to a request for a 1.5% transfer from Special Schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Block.’ We are aware that the rules have changed for special schools whereby a cut in funding cannot be imposed upon them (at least, as we understand it, without asking for special dispensation from central government). It is unclear from the consultation document how the other cuts/changes might be impacted should special schools refuse to take a cut (which we would urge them to do). 9. Re: ‘The current banding system is complex and there are numerous levels within each 3

55 banding. It is not possible to present as part of this consultation the full range of financial bandings since that runs into several pages.’ We have seen the various bandings and are unclear why the Council say it would run to several pages – if there is such a document running to this length, it should be released for public scrutiny. Furthermore, the table shows ‘the lower thresholds for bands “E” to “I” so that you can see the current funding for those lowest thresholds in those bands.’ and is a ‘Summary of our current “Top Up” banding thresholds at the lowest points’: but our understanding is that this is misleading, as it implies that these are the lowest amount of top-up children can get at these bands (i.e. some children are getting more), when in fact these are specified ‘points’ on a ladder, rather than bands, that imply a range. 10. Re: ‘One issue to consider when proposing any reduction to the ‘top up’ funding (element 3), is that schools have considerable operational flexibility in their daily use of resources in making the appropriate provision for pupils in their school. This could be provision in a typical classroom setting or may be based on practice that encompasses the wider, whole school provision. The provision made for a pupil with an EHCP in a mainstream school is not made in isolation from the rest of the staff or school, where staffing levels and resources are regularly altered dependent on need. In this context, we believe that the proposed reduction in funding for a pupil over the course of a year is something that is appropriate and manageable.’ Surely the implication of this (and, indeed, much anecdotal evidence suggests this) is that a school’s general funds and resources are being used to support SEND children. Given schools’ budgets have already been cut and, in many cases, are at breaking point, surely saying that ‘wider, whole school provision’ might cover gaps left by reduced funding is going to put a strain on budgets and resources that already have no leeway. 11. Re: ‘Allocating funding from alternative Council budgets. This is not a preferred option because all budget lines within the Council are under some form of budgetary pressure.’ The Council has previously stated it is not permitted to use money from other Council budgets to help fund the Higher Needs Block. This seems to imply that the Council could in theory use alternative Council budgets, but are choosing not to. If this is the case, it has considerable bearing on any cuts to the Higher Needs Block – at present, no clarity has been provided. 12. As a result of the failure of the Council to provide stakeholders with the relevant information concerning the latest consultation in a timely fashion, the deadline for responses was put back to 9 December, meaning the outcome of the public consultation will not be available until 10 December. Given the next stage of the process is for Schools Forum to decide on one of the proposals (a movement of funding from the schools block to the high needs block) and give a view on the other proposals, which is taking place on 11 December, it is manifestly clear that this provides insufficient time for Schools Forum members to meaningfully consider the consultation responses in coming to their decision/views. 13. The Council’s costings and approach as outlined in the consultation is based on the budget announced by the current Conservative government. Given the election of a Labour (or coalition) government would mean a sea-change in the funding landscape for SEND children, surely on purely practical grounds it is incumbent on the Council to delay the current phase of the consultation until after the 12 December election. This has been put to the Council, which has so far refused, for reasons we are am currently unaware of. This decision seems particularly perverse given Clare Coghill’s, Leader of Waltham Forest Council, publicly stated earlier this year that, ‘is vital that sustainable levels of additional funding for SEND provision are introduced as soon as possible. We have not yet had answers that provides any commitment to increasing support for these families in need. This is why we have decided to delay taking a formal decision on SEND funding proposals following our consultation earlier this year.’ Furthermore, it has been reported that the Council have stopped consulting on other issues, such as housing redevelopment, due to general election-related ‘purdah’. However, the SEND consultation is going ahead in full knowledge that national political change could have a significant impact on the SEND budget. 14. When the Council was initially questioned by Waltham Forest SEND Crisis as to whether it had conducted an Equality Impact Assessment, the answer was an unequivocal ‘yes’. This was then, in the Council's words, revised to saying that the Equality Impact Assessment is a: '"working document" and will be updated as proposals develop and therefore is not the finalised 4

56 document which will be presented as part of the Council’s decision making process.' Despite a promise by the Council that an updated Equality Impact Assessment would be made public and circulated, to our knowledge this has not been done.

The Legal Case for Resisting Cuts It is worth stressing here that our grievance is with the Council – we know from experience that schools work incredibly hard for SEND children, and you have our full support. In terms of the proposed cuts, we believe that the Council’s objective has been to balance its budget, rather than setting a budget that will meet the needs of children in the borough. Nothing we have seen so far indicates that the Council has, to date, conducted any meaningful impact assessment. To reiterate, a recent High Court Judgement overturned proposed SEND cuts made by Bristol City Council, on the basis: ‘There is no evidence, from the extensive paperwork … that members of the Council had any regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children … when making the decision to proceed with the proposed savings. Indeed, the decision-making process appears to be driven entirely from the standpoint of ensuring a balanced budget by 2020/21.’ We believe the exact same situation applies in Waltham Forest. Moreover, we believe the consultation has been unlawfully conducted, failing to provide parents with sufficient information about alternatives to Models A and B. We intend, if necessary, on taking the Council to judicial review, and believe that if we do so, we will win.

The Moral Case for Resisting Cuts Of course, we can talk about the law, and we can talk about money. Really, however, this is about children – children with illness and disability. Our belief is that you should judge a society on the way it treats the most vulnerable. Taking away our children’s access to vital treatment, support and education risks destroying their lives and those of their families. To those in Waltham Forest SEND Crisis, the discovery that a local authority can and would be willing deny support that a child desperately needs and is entitled to by law has come as a shocking wake-up call. Furthermore, this is not simply about children with additional needs. By stripping away teaching assistants (an inevitable result of funding cuts) and allowing children with special needs and disability to go unsupported in our classrooms, the learning of all children in this borough will be jeopardised.

History will judge the decisions we make now – to follow a path that is unlawful and unjust – or to rebuild our decimated services and be proud of who we are as a borough. We therefore ask you to join us in challenging any proposed cuts and holding those with the power to prevent them to account.

There Is an Alternative It has been suggested both to parents and schools that there is ‘no alternative’ to the cuts. This is emphatically not the case. Waltham Forest SEND Crisis is tabling the ‘Children First,’ which consists of the following key points: • Guaranteeing that funding and banding is maintained at existing levels •– if necessary, drawing on Council reserves – until the proposed 'multi agency review of banding' and 'system-wide evaluation of processes' (which should include meaningful impact assessments and analysis of EHCPs at all banding levels, as well as consideration of children with SEND needs who do not currently have an EHCP) has been completed and its resultant recommendations have been put to meaningful public consultation. • Further to the above, as a bare minimum, publicly guaranteeing that funding and banding is maintained at existing levels for at least the duration of the current (2019-20 school year). At present, it is only guaranteed until April 2020, which we are aware is making budget planning for schools incredibly difficult. • (As discussed at the Stakeholder Engagement Meetings) providing schools with a ‘model template’ for provision maps and clear guidelines on costing, to allow clearer comparisons across schools of the costs associated with EHCPs at various banding levels, and more transparency for parents. • (As discussed at the Stakeholder Engagement Meetings) conducting a full assessment 5

57 of proportion of Higher Needs Block funding goes towards what might be considered ‘health’ rather than ‘education’ needs, and whether any of these costs might be covered by relevant healthcare budgets. • (Should sufficient funding is not forthcoming from central government to meet the needs of children in the borough following the ‘system-wide evaluation of processes’) taking central government to Judicial Review, arguing that Waltham Forest Council is no longer able to meet its lawful obligations regarding the funding of children with additional needs. • Launching a ‘fund our borough’ campaign, using all means within the Council’s disposal to advocate for parents and raise awareness of the funding crisis, including persistent, assertive and transparent lobbying of central government.

What We Are Asking You to Do We are aware that, from a legal standpoint, Waltham Forest Council can overrule any vote/recommendation made by Schools Forum, but from a political standpoint this would be difficult to do. Our argument is that should the Council be intent on forcing through these cuts, they must take responsibility for doing so, rather than attempting to deflect responsibility onto Schools Forum (in effect, we believe this proposal will ‘throw Schools Forum under the bus’ in terms of culpability for this decision).

In conclusion, we strongly urge you to vote against both Models A and B, against any cuts to special schools, and impress upon the Council the need for the 'multi agency review of banding' and 'system-wide evaluation of processes' to be completed before any changes to banding are proposed. Please, if you can, lend your support our ‘Children First’ proposal. If you do not feel you can vote against the proposed cuts for whatever reason, then please abstain. Your actions could have a significant impact when our case comes to court, not to mention on the futures of countless children in the borough.

Ken Barlow, Organising Committee, Waltham Forest SEND Crisis Facebook: Waltham Forest SEND Crisis; Twitter: @SENDCrisisWF

6

58 Statement by the London Borough of Waltham Forest

1. The LA is fully aware of the assertions that this consultation has been unlawful and notes the intention to seek to challenge any decision taken but the purpose of the item “Proposals for High Needs” at Schools Forum is to invite Schools Forum to give its’ consultation responses and for it to do so. 2. In the High Court case KE v Bristol (2018) a judicial review claim against the reduction of the SEN budget line in Bristol CC’s budget succeeded because amongst other matters there had been no consultation or equalities consideration before it was set. 3. It is not believed that the Bristol case could be relied on to challenge the Schools Forum’s views on the LA’s options. Schools Forum is being asked to provide a response to the LA’s preferred option on EHCP funding. 4. In response to the specific concern raised regarding changes to the LA’s proposals since May, at the time of the original proposals in May 2019 the Council based those proposals on financial information known at the time. Since then the Council has become aware of the increases made in funding by Central Government and has also additional proposals in respect of the High Needs Block budget as a whole which it is seeking agreement of Schools Forum upon as set out in the consultation document and report to Schools Forum. 5. In response to the suggestion the decision making should be postponed, the Council cannot delay its’ budget setting processes until after any election nor is it required to do so as a result of the calling of a general election. 6. The Council is entitled to aim at setting a balanced budget and indeed is required to do so. This is not the same as setting a capped budget over which no further funding would be available for individual children should they need it.

7. An Equalities Impact Assessment has already commenced and will continue to be updated and presented to the decision makers who are the Cabinet Committee of the LA. To the extent necessary, consideration of consultation, equalities and other relevant factors may be undertaken at a later stage in the decision-making process to be undertaken by the LA and the Bristol case does not suggest otherwise. 8. The Council’s objective in carrying out its function of assessment of educational needs is to meet the needs of the young people within Waltham Forest. As set out in the consultation document the level of funding provided to schools to meet individual children’s special educational needs is made up from different elements from the High Needs Budget that is provided to schools. 9. A child can be moved to a higher band and can have individual items of provision funded separately from the Resource Level funding where this is thought appropriate. Schools may raise issues when they think a resource level needs to change for a child as can parents and carers. There is a legal obligation to meet assessed needs.

59 10. The consultation document sets out options considered by the Council, why those options are not the preferred options, and specifically consults on two options, one of which is a preferred option. There is no requirement for the Council to invite responses on each and every option available to it. 11. Those being consulted are specifically asked “Do you have any other comments on our proposals for EHCP banding?” Consultees are therefore able to provide any other comments they wish and express any views they may have in response to this question. 12. Following the banding proposal identified and consulted on in the summer, the council conducted a sample audit of EHCPs for children receiving ‘E’ band funding to assess potential impact or implications should banding funding levels be reduced. This research was presented and discussed at the second further engagement consultation meeting that took place 18th October. Whilst the data was anonymised, it was agreed that the information would not be circulated beyond the meeting to prevent upset from parents who may have been able to identify the care plan for their child, based on the care requirements that were set out in the care plans that were sampled. It was at this meeting the decision was taken to carry out the same activity for ‘F’ band EHCPs. Research was then carried out for ‘F’ band EHCPs. The findings of both the E and F band research activities were discussed at the final further engagement consultation meeting 30th October. Both proposals have been examined through the sampling of EHCPs chosen at random from the current population. The factors considered when assessing that these two options would not in the LA view reduce or put at risk provision of individual children are summarised in the consultation document. 13. Cabinet will be presented with all consultation responses and representations, and with all of options and alternatives put forward in order to take their decision.

60 Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 9 11 December 2019 Report Title Proposals for High Needs 2020-2021

Decision/Discussion/ For Discussion and Decision by all Information Report Author/ David Kilgallon; Director of Learning and Systems Contact details Leadership [email protected] 020 8496 3504

Duncan James-Pike, Strategic Finance Advisor, 020 8496 3502 duncan,[email protected]

Appendices Appendix A: Public Consultation Document Appendix B: Interim Summary of responses to the public consultation as at 4 December 2019 Appendix C: School LFF Consultation responses Appendix D: Illustration of inter-block transfer

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This report sets out the options being considered, and consulted on, that aim to achieve a balanced budget for the High Needs Block in 2020-21.

1.2 The current forecast for High Needs for 2019-20 is an in-year overspend of £3.5 million which will result in a cumulative deficit overspend of £5.3 million. Once balances in the Early Years Block and for the Growth Fund are taken into account, the cumulative deficit on the Dedicated Schools Grant is projected to be £2.3 million, just below the ESFA’s threshold £2.6 million (1% of DSG balances). If the cumulative deficit exceeds this threshold, the LA must submit a recovery plan to the ESFA.

1.3 In anticipation of breaching this threshold in 2020-21, the LA has been consulting on ways to manage High Needs expenditure within the DSG allocations.

1.4 The LA must consult Schools Forum on financial issues relating to arrangements for pupils with special educational needs and Schools Forum is being asked for its views on the LA’s proposals which it believes are the best option within the parameter that the DSG operational budgets for 2020-21 need to be within the DSG allocation available.

1.5 The response of Schools Forum to the LA’s preferred option, Option B, with regard to the funding of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and any 1

61 representations it wishes the LA to take into account, will be reported to January 2020 Cabinet.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Schools Forum to note:

2.1.1 The interim summary of responses to the public consultation at Appendix B.

2.1.2 The update to the summary of responses to the public consultation issued as a second despatch on 10 December.

2.1.3 The responses from the consultation with schools as set out in Appendix C to the proposal to transfer 0.15% (estimated £303,000) from the Schools Block into the High Needs Block for 2020-21.

2.2 Schools Forum to agree :

2.2.1 To transfer 0.15% (estimated £303,000) of the Schools Block to the High Needs Block in 2020-21.

2.2.2 A response to the LA’s preferred option, Option B, with regard to the funding of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and any representations it wishes the LA to take into account when any decision is taken.

3. REASON

3.1 The High Needs Block (HNB) is the funding provided by the government for the Local Authority (LA) to support pupils with Specials Educational Needs and Disability (SEND), Alternative Provision (AP) and a range of SEND services. Waltham Forest expects to receive approximately £42 million in HNB funding for the year 2020-21. This year, there is currently a projected in- year deficit (i.e. overspend) of £3.5 million which is likely to increase further by the end of March 2020. The current level of budget pressure on SEND provision is not sustainable in the long term. The Council is therefore seeking to find efficiencies across the education service whilst still ensuring that we fulfil our legal obligations.

4. BACKGROUND

4.1 The Financial Situation

4.1.1 Expenditure on High Needs in this financial year (2019-20) is projected to total £40.75 million. Growth in the number of pupils needing SEND support is expected to continue to rise by approximately 10%, which together with investment to improve Alternative Provision (AP) and the benefit from the contract improvements in SEND Success and Home Hospital Tuition gives an estimated expenditure of £45 million in 2020-21. 2

62 4.1.2 The High Needs Block allocation to Waltham Forest for Financial Year (FY) 2020-21 (next year) is £42.38 million an increase of £4.94 million (13%) on the allocation for 2019-20 (this year). This leaves a funding gap of £2.670 million for 2020-21.

£ million Projected Spend 2019-20 Rolled Forward 40.750 Add Growth 3.961 Add Better Quality Alternative Provision 0.400 Less Full Year Effect of Contract Efficiencies -0.103 Projected Spend 2020-21 45.008 High Needs Allocation from the DFE -42.338 FUNDING GAP 2020-21 2.670

4.1.3 The current pressures and rates of funding mean that there is a forecast accumulated underfunding of £5.3 million by 31 March 2020 comprising the £3.5 million funding gap in 2019-20 and £1.8 million from previous years. 4.1.4 The deficit is being driven by the significant increase in the numbers of young people needing additional support, including raising the age of those supported to 25, along with previous decisions about the level of funding required to meet the needs identified at specific levels that were unrealistic and unsustainable in the longer term. Current figures show that Waltham Forest ‘Level 1’ funding is over two times higher than the average of other neighbouring Local authorities: £3,800. Islington LA currently funds ‘Level 1’ at £1,175, whilst Hackney LA currently funds at £4,895. Government comparative spend analysis also shows that Waltham Forest funds at a significantly higher level than similar LAs. 4.1.5 Our bandings mentioned above are historic figures, selected many years ago, that we believe do not reflect the current Educational climate, and do not reflect the content of our current Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). 4.1.6 An accumulated deficit of £5.3 million is at risk of breaching the ESFA’s threshold of 1% of the total Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and the Local Authority would be required to report to the ESFA on its plans for bringing the DSG back into balance. 4.1.7 In preparation for this requirement the Local Authority set about addressing and consulting upon its plans for allocating High Needs funding in 2020-21, with the aim of setting a balanced budget and aiming to ensure that the projected accumulated balance is not increased further. 5. Consultation on High Needs Block Funding

5.1 There is a statutory requirement for the Council to consult with Schools Forum when making important decisions around schools and funding. Schools Forum refreshed the membership and terms of reference of the Inclusion

3

63 Group which was set up in December 2018 with the aim of identifying proposals to allocate HNB funding for the financial year 2020-21.

5.2 Further officer meetings took place in May 2019 following the work of the Inclusion Group to identify suitable proposals to take forward. A consultation then took place during the summer. Part of this was an online survey, which was undertaken to capture direct responses to the options presented to make changes to current bandings in the ‘top-up’ funding element of the HNB applied to children with EHCPs. In addition, as part of the consultation process, meetings were carried out with school teachers and leaders, parent groups including the SEND Parent Forum and school governors.

5.3 Following the conclusion of the consultation in July, the Council decided to delay taking a decision on that proposal so that further engagement could be carried out with a working party to respond to concerns raised through the consultation process, consider other options that might be taken instead, and because of the prospect that central government would increase funding in this area.

5.4 Further engagement meetings were held between September and October 2019 with representatives from schools, the Waltham Forest Parent Partnership group and the SEND Crisis network. Council officers carried out extensive research into the approaches of other Local Authorities addressing the same issues to identify areas of good practice and carried out sample research around the provision for children receiving ‘E band’ funding (and then ‘F band’). A meeting was held with the LA linked DfE officer for SEND to provide more clarity around the national picture and offer further guidance. Additional funding has now been confirmed from central government and the LA has been notified of the level of this additional funding.

5.5 There is still a budget deficit and a need for the Council to consider making changes to the banding model in order to bring about the aim that a balanced budget in HNB is achieved for 2020-2021. Due to the changes in government funding, and our engagement meetings with stakeholders we have amended our proposals to offer an alternative method of remaining within the allocated budget. This would include a combination of transfers from schools’ budgets into the High Needs budget, smaller changes to the current banding system being applied and some further actions (as outlined in the consultation document). Schools Forum was consulted on the transfer from special schools in November and is being consulted on the proposed transfer from the Schools Block in this report.

5.6 Schools, parents and carers, and stakeholders were invited to respond to the revised proposal to change the bandings applied through an online survey between 4 November 2019 and 9 December 2019. The outcome of the 4

64 consultation has been reported to this Schools Forum and will be presented to Cabinet who will take the decision as to what changes, if any, are made in January 2020.

5.7 All partners involved in the engagement work to date have indicated that they wish to see additional funding allocated from central government. The Council has always been and remains very supportive of this approach and instigated a series of requests/engagements with the Government on behalf of the community of Waltham Forest and is committed to continuing to pursue the issue of additional funding on an ongoing basis. This has already resulted in an increased allocation for 2020/2021.

6. The Proposals

A Transfer from the Schools budget for all schools to the High Needs Budget of 0.15%

6.1 It is proposed that Schools Forum should agree to a request for a 0.15% transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block. This is intended to support the ‘Inclusive’ approach taken by the borough and its schools, based on the premise that ‘ALL’ schools have a shared ownership for SEND pupils across the borough, regardless of how many are in any one specific school. An illustration of the impact on schools’ budget allocations is shown in Appendix D.

A Transfer of 1.5% of Special Schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Budget.

6.2 It is proposed that Special Schools and Schools Forum should agree to a request for a 1.5% transfer from Special Schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Block. We believe that asking for this contribution is fair and can be managed with no impact on pupil outcomes due to the “healthy” level of ‘reserve’ funding available within our special school sector.

6.3 While this proposal was not supported by the two academy trusts, the maintained special school has confirmed its support for the proposal. At its November 2019 meeting Schools Forum approved that the Local Authority submits a disapplication request to the DFE to allow the Local Authority to apply a -1.5% MFG to Special Schools Budgets for 2020-21, transferring £300,000 from special schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Block.

Proposed Changes to EHCP bands

6.4 In the public consultation document (Appendix C) the Council proposes to make changes to the funding bands for EHCPs in order to achieve the

5

65 objective of a balanced budget in one of the following two ways set out in the two models below.

MODEL A

6.5 This model proposes that we implement a new, simplified ‘Resource Ladder’ for existing EHCPs. The new Ladder would be similar in design to the existing one, with a layered approach within each banding that enables increasing the funding allocated to meet increased levels of need. However, in this simplified version, the Primary and Secondary banding levels are brought together which removes the current differences between the EHCP additional funding in those schools.

6.6 The number of levels would be four and not five as is currently the case. The proposed funding amounts in this model we believe more closely reflect the exact levels of provision required to meet the needs identified within the EHCPs that have been reviewed. This has been supported by our review of a sample of current EHCP provision.

6.7 Under this model it is anticipated that young people in mainstream settings and Special Resource Provisions (SRPs) currently in receipt of ‘top-up’ funding would be reviewed as soon as any decision has been taken by the Council to adopt the change and will be assimilated onto this new Ladder by 1 April 2020. The new funding levels would also be used for any EHCPs completed after 1 April 2020 in the event that no further changes were made to the Resource Ladder.

6.8 The proposed ladder under this model showing the lowest points is as follows:

Level 1 (currently known £5,000 as Band E)

Level 2 (currently known £15,000 as Band F and G)

Level 3 (currently known £21,000 as Band H)

Level 4 (currently known £43,000 as Band I)

MODEL B

6.9 This model proposes that we introduce a Resource Ladder that replaces the existing banding system and retains differentials between primary and 6

66 secondary levels, but which makes a reduction of 10% in the current funding bands for existing EHCPs at E and F level only. This would only affect those allocated these levels of support in existing EHCPs in mainstream schools.

6.10 Under this model the funding levels for EHCPs in School Resourced Provision (SRP) would not be included in these changes. This is because the funding for these EHCPs is used to help to deliver a specialist unit, with all of the associated additional costs, and therefore have far less opportunity to deliver efficiencies.

6.11 Under this proposal, current bands G, H and I remain at their current levels.

6.12 The proposed model making changes to levels E and F is as follows (this ladder shows the current lowest thresholds and proposed lowest thresholds for levels E and F) :

Current funding allocation Proposed funding allocation Primary Level E £8,427 £7,584 Primary Level F £15,177 £13,659

Secondary Level E £7,137 £6,423 Secondary Level F £13,887 £12,498

6.13 If adopted, this proposal would be introduced from 1 April 2020 for all existing EHCPs at level E and F in our mainstream schools. The new funding levels would also be used for any EHCPs completed after 1 April 2020 in the event that no further changes were made to the Resource Ladder.

6.14 As part of these proposals the LA has carried out sampling exercises across a range of existing EHCPs. This evidence has been fed back during the consultation workshops.

6.15 Following the extensive consultation process, and the additional research, the LA believes that both of these proposals would enable Waltham Forest schools to absorb the reductions in a way that would not have a negative impact on the provision for young people with an EHCP. The preferred option for the LA is MODEL B. This is because the level of the reduction for each individual EHCP is lower.

7. Other proposals put forward through the consultation process

Use of Council Reserves

7.1 That the budget deficit should be met through the use of Council reserves. This is not a preferred option because Council reserves are for the use in emergencies rather than for funding of service provision. 7

67 Use of other Council Budgets

7.2 Allocating funding from alternative Council budgets. This is not a preferred option because all budget lines within the Council are under some form of budgetary pressure.

7.3 It is also to be noted that the DFE ran a consultation between 11 October and 15 November to change the conditions attached to the Dedicated Schools Grant proposing that local authorities must carry forward the whole of the overspend to the schools budget in future years and that local authorities may not fund any part of the overspend from its general resources, unless it applies for and receives permission from the Secretary of State to do so. The purpose of making these proposed changes to the conditions of grant and to the regulations is to establish clearly that local authorities will not be required to cover any DSG deficit from general funds.

Reduce funding to SEND support services

7.4 Reduction in funding for the Council’s central SEND Service budget they receive from HNB and the service to look to absorb this reduction through service changes being made. Whilst this is not an option being consulted upon, we will look at how we can make this service the most efficient in terms of its use of resources and the allocation from the HNB this service receives.

7.5 Reduction of the funding allocated to support the BACME (Behaviour, Attendance and Children Missing Education) Service from the HNB allocation. Whilst this is not an option being consulted upon, we will look at what changes we can make to this service and identify if any reduction from the allocation from the HNB this service receives are viable.

7.6 Although the above proposals are not being consulted upon (because these are not the preferred options for the reasons outlined) we will ensure that Cabinet are informed of these options, together with any other options or proposals put forward through the consultation when they make their decision.

8. Other steps we propose to take to improve the way we arrange alternative provision and evaluation of the resource ladder.

Alternative Provision – Forest Pathways

8.1 This current provision is particularly expensive, (when compared to other provisions). It is proposed to facilitate other arrangements through commissioning a new provider which combines Year 11 with a similar provision for Years 12 and 13. This would have the advantage of providing opportunities for current Year 11s to engage in mainstream learning 8

68 opportunities from a much earlier stage, thereby enhancing their life chances considerably. Our proposal is to commission this new service from George Monoux College.

SEND Success Outreach Contract and Home Hospital Contracts

8.2 The Director of Learning has held negotiations with the Whitefield and Hornbeam special academy trusts through their commissioning groups. Whitefield (SEND Success), and Hornbeam (Home Hospital), have both agreed to provide an amended service offer which protects the quality of the current service delivery, but represents far better value for money for the HNB.

Creation of a new ‘Resource Ladder Working Group

8.3 The current system of allocating funding through the Education Health Care Plans (EHCPs) is in need of a comprehensive review since it is based on data, practice and contextual statistics from nearly ten years ago. The proposal is to establish a working group now to complete a system-wide evaluation of processes. This would encompass review of protocols, threshold criteria, pathways and the systems for banding/resource levels.

8.4 The group will be comprised of membership to ensure that the needs and voices of children, young adults and their parents/carers are considered with regards to any changes to the current system; in accordance with HNB principles; and in line with SEND code of practice. This group will be tasked with identifying a more appropriate Resource Ladder, fit for purpose for the current Education system, which, subject to any consultation obligations and decision making, is intended would be implemented from September 2020.

Impact of proposals upon individual children’s special educational needs

9.1 The level of funding provided to schools to meet individual children’s special educational needs is made up from different elements from the High Needs Budget that is provided to schools. The proposed changes will not change the way in which any individual child may be moved to a higher band and can have individual items of provision funded separately from the Resource Level funding where this is thought appropriate. Schools may raise issues when they think a resource level needs to change for a child as can parents and carers. There is a legal obligation to meet assessed needs. The proposals being consulted upon do not set a capped budget over which no further funding would be available for individual children should they need it.

9

69

FURTHER CONSULTATION ON ALLOCATION OF HIGH NEEDS BUDGET (HNB) FUNDING 2020-21

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

The High Needs Block (HNB) is the funding provided by the government for the Local Authority (LA) to support pupils with Specials Educational Needs and Disability (SEND), Alternative Provision (AP) and a range of SEND services. Waltham Forest expects to receive approximately £42 million in HNB funding for the year 2020-21. This year, there is currently a projected in-year deficit (i.e. overspend) of £3.5 million which is likely to increase further by the end of March 2020. The current level of budget pressure on SEND provision is not sustainable in the long term. The Council is therefore seeking to find efficiencies across the education service to achieve the highest possible savings whilst still ensuring that we fulfil our legal obligations.

THE FINANCIAL SITUATION

Expenditure on High Needs in this financial year (2019-20) is projected to total £40.75 million. Growth in the number of pupils needing SEND support is expected to continue to rise by approximately 10%, which together with investment to improve Alternative Provision (AP) and the benefit from the contract improvements in SEND Success and Home Hospital Tuition gives an estimated expenditure of £45 million in 2020-21.

The High Needs Block allocation to Waltham Forest for Financial Year (FY) 2020-21 (next year) is £42.38 million an increase of £4.94 million (13%) on the allocation for 2019-20 (this year). This leaves a funding gap of £2.670 million for 2020-21.

£ million Projected Spend 2019-20 Rolled Forward 40.750 Add Growth 3.961 Add Better Quality Alternative Provision 0.400 Less Full Year Effect of Contract Efficiencies -0.103 Projected Spend 2020-21 45.008 High Needs Allocation from the DFE -42.338 FUNDING GAP 2020-21 2.670

The current pressures and rates of funding mean that there is a forecast accumulated underfunding of £5.3 million by 31 March 2020 comprising the £3.5 million funding gap in 2019-20 and £1.8 million from previous years.

The deficit is being driven by the significant increase in the numbers of young people needing additional support, including raising the age of those supported to 25, along with previous decisions about the level of funding required to meet the needs identified at specific levels that were unrealistic and unsustainable in the longer term. Current figures show that Waltham Forest ‘Level 1’ funding is over two times higher than the average of other neighbouring Local authorities: £3,800, (Islington LA currently funds ‘Level 1’ at £1,175, whilst Hackney LA currently funds at £4,895).

Our bandings mentioned above are historic figures, selected many years ago, that we believe do not reflect the current Educational climate, and do not reflect the content of our current Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs).

70 An accumulated deficit of £5.3 million is at risk of breaching the ESFA’s threshold of 1% of the total Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and the Local Authority would be required to report to the ESFA on its plans for bringing the DSG back into balance.

In preparation for this requirement the Local Authority set about addressing and consulting upon its plans for allocating High Needs funding in 2020-21, with the aim of setting a balanced budget and aiming to ensure that the projected accumulated balance is not increased further.

CONSULTATION ON HNB FUNDING TO DATE

There is a statutory requirement for the Council to consult with Schools Forum when making important decisions around schools and funding. Schools Forum refreshed the membership and terms of reference of the Inclusion Group which was set up in December 2018 with the aim of identifying proposals to allocate HNB funding for the financial year 2020-21. Further officer meetings took place in May 2019 following the work of the Inclusion Group to identify suitable proposals to take forward. A consultation then took place during the summer. Part of this was an online survey, which was undertaken to capture direct responses to the options presented to make changes to current bandings in the ‘top-up’ funding element of the HNB applied to children with EHCPs. In addition, as part of the consultation process, meetings were carried out with school teachers and leaders, parent groups including the SEND Parent Forum and school governors.

Following the conclusion of the consultation in July, the Council decided to delay taking a decision on that proposal so that further engagement could be carried out with a working party to respond to concerns raised through the consultation process, consider other options that might be taken instead, and because of the prospect that central government would increase funding in this area.

Further engagement meetings were held between September and October 2019 with representatives from schools, the Waltham Forest Parent Partnership group and the SEND Crisis network. Council officers carried out extensive research into the approaches of other Local Authorities addressing the same issues to identify areas of good practice and carried out sample research around the provision for children receiving ‘E band’ funding. A meeting was organised with the DfE officer for SEND to provide more clarity around the national picture and offer further guidance. Additional funding has now been confirmed from central government and the LA has been notified of the level of this additional funding.

There is still a budget deficit and a need for the Council to consider making changes to the banding model in order to bring about the aim that a balanced budget in HNB is achieved for 2020-2021. Due to the changes in government funding, and our engagement meetings with stakeholders, we no longer propose to continue with the changes to the current banding model that we consulted upon in May. The way in which we now propose this is achieved is through a combination of transfers from schools’ budgets into the High Needs budget, and smaller changes to the current banding system being applied. Schools Forum will be consulted on the proposed transfers.

Schools, parents and carers, and stakeholders are now invited to respond to the revised proposal to change the bandings applied through an online survey between 4 November 2019 and 2 December 2019. The outcome of the consultation will be reported to Schools Forum in December and will be presented to Cabinet who will take the decision as to what changes, if any, are made in January 2020.

All partners involved in the engagement work to date have indicated that they wish to see additional funding allocated from central government. The Council has always been and remains very supportive

71 of this approach and instigated a series of requests/engagements with the Government on behalf of the community of Waltham Forest and is committed to continuing to pursue the issue of additional funding on an ongoing basis.

As indicated above, the Council will consult Schools Forum upon the following proposed transfers:

A Transfer from the Schools budget for all schools to the High Needs Budget of 0.15% It is proposed that Schools Forum should agree to a request for a 0.15% transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block. This is intended to support the ‘Inclusive’ approach taken by the borough and its schools, based on the premise that ‘ALL’ schools have a shared ownership for SEND pupils across the borough, regardless of how many are in any one specific school.

A Transfer of 1.5% of Special Schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Budget. It is proposed that Special Schools and Schools Forum should agree to a request for a 1.5% transfer from Special Schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Block. We believe that asking for this contribution is fair and can be managed with no impact on pupil outcomes due to the “healthy” level of ‘reserve’ funding available within our special school sector.

We are asking for your views on the proposed changes to the funding bands for EHCPs.

The current banding system is complex and there are numerous levels within each banding. It is not possible to present as part of this consultation the full range of financial bandings since that runs into several pages. We have therefore selected, in order to demonstrate in as clear a way as we can the impact of the proposals set out below in model A and model B, the lower thresholds for bands ‘E’ to ‘I’ so that you can see the current funding for those lowest thresholds in those bands.

We have then under the models below presented the proposals with reference to how they compare with these current bandings. Under model A the current ‘E’ to ‘I’ bands are replaced with four levels instead of five, and in that model both primary and secondary schools receive the same levels of funding. Under model B it is only bands E and F that are affected where are proposed to be reduced by 10% but all of the other bands, i.e. levels G, H and I remain the same without any reductions in those levels.

Summary of our current “Top Up” banding thresholds at the lowest points:

Level E Level F Level G Level H Level I Primary Mainstream £8,427 £15,177 £17,927 £21,677 £43,427 Primary SRP £8,000 £14,750 £17,500 £21,250 £43,000 All through Mainstream £7,137 £13,887 £16,637 £20,387 £42,137 Secondary Mainstream £7,137 £13,887 £16,637 £20,387 £42,137 Secondary SRP £8,000 £14,750 £17,500 £21,250 £43,000

.

The Council proposes to make changes to the funding bands for EHCPs in order to achieve the objective of a balanced budget in one of the following two ways set out in the two models below. Please note that in both models the term ‘banding’ will be replaced by the term ‘resource ladder’ but mean the same thing.

72 Please also note: Element funding refers to the three elements of funding that schools receive to support young people with an EHCP. Element 1 relates to the age weighted pupil unit. Element 2 relates to the notional SEND funding. Element 3 relates to the ‘top up’ funding allocated by the Local Authority.

The two specific proposals that are being put forward relate to the funding for the ‘banding system’ (i.e. element 3.) It is, we believe, possible for Waltham Forest’s schools to absorb the changes proposed in these levels, without reducing or putting at risk the special educational provision of individual children. Both proposals have been examined through the sampling of EHCPs chosen at random from the current population. The factors considered when assessing that these two options would not reduce or put at risk provision of individual children are summarised in the following points:

One issue to consider when proposing any reduction to the ‘top up’ funding (element 3), is that schools have considerable operational flexibility in their daily use of resources in making the appropriate provision for pupils in their school. This could be provision in a typical classroom setting or may be based on practice that encompasses the wider, whole school provision. The provision made for a pupil with an EHCP in a mainstream school is not made in isolation from the rest of the staff or school, where staffing levels and resources are regularly altered dependent on need. In this context, we believe that the proposed reduction in funding for a pupil over the course of a year is something that is appropriate and manageable.

It is important to remember that the special educational provision for individual children is not just through the ‘top up’ funding. Any reductions proposed in either model would only be to this element 3 funding. Elements 1 and 2 would remain unchanged for individual children.

It is our view that the proposed reductions would be manageable for schools because it would lead to a relatively small percentage reduction in the overall budget for individual schools. An analysis of the figures for every school in the borough led us to believe that in most cases the reductions were in the region of a few thousand pounds per school. This is in the context of overall budgets of a few million pounds for each school. Very roughly then, the impact on the total Primary school budget was 0.46%. For the total budget the figure was 0.2%.

We are seeking your views in respect of the following two options being considered:

MODEL A – This model proposes that we implement a new, simplified ‘Resource Ladder’ for existing EHCPs. The new Ladder would be similar in design to the existing one, with a layered approach within each banding that enables increasing the funding allocated to meet increased levels of need. However, in this simplified version, the Primary and Secondary banding levels are brought together which removes the current differences between the EHCP additional funding in those schools. The number of levels would be four and not five as is currently the case. The proposed funding amounts in this model we believe more closely reflect the exact levels of provision required to meet the needs identified within the EHCPs that have been reviewed. This has been supported by our review of a sample of current EHCP provision.

Under this model it is anticipated that young people in mainstream settings and Special Resource Provisions (SRPs) currently in receipt of ‘top-up’ funding would be reviewed as soon as any decision has been taken by the Council to adopt the change and will be assimilated onto this new Ladder by 1 April 2020. The new funding levels would also be used for any EHCPs completed after 1 April 2020 until any further changes were made to the Resource Ladder.

73 The proposed ladder under this model showing the lowest points is as follows:

Level 1 (currently known as £5,000 Band E) Level 2 (currently known as £15,000 Band F and G) Level 3 (currently known as £21,000 Band H) Level 4 (currently known £43,000 as Band I)

MODEL B – This model proposes that we introduce a Resource Ladder that replaces the existing banding system and retains differentials between primary and secondary levels, but which makes a reduction of 10% in the current funding bands for existing EHCPs at E and F level only. This would only affect those allocated these levels of support in existing EHCPs in mainstream schools. The number of children on E and F levels is 1,374 out of a total of 1,643 EHCPs.

Under this model the funding levels for EHCPs in School Resourced Provision (SRP) would not be included in these changes. This is because the funding for these EHCPs is used to help to deliver a specialist unit, with all of the associated additional costs, and therefore have far less opportunity to deliver efficiencies.

Under this proposal, current bands G, H and I set out in our current table above would remain at their current funding levels.

The proposed model making changes to levels E and F is as follows (this ladder shows both the current lowest thresholds and proposed lowest thresholds for levels E and F):

Current funding allocation Proposed funding allocation Primary Level E £8,427 £7,854 Primary Level F £15,177 £13,659

Secondary Level E £7,137 £6,423 Secondary Level F £13,887 £12,498

Under this proposal the changes would be introduced from 1 April 2020 for all existing EHCPs at level E and F in our mainstream schools. The new funding levels would also be used for any EHCPs completed after 1 April 2020 and would apply until any further changes were made to the Resource Ladder.

As part of these proposals the LA has carried out sampling exercises across a range of existing EHCPs. This evidence has been fed back during the consultation workshops.

Following the extensive consultation process, and the additional research, the LA believes that both of these proposals would enable Waltham Forest schools to absorb the reductions in a way that would not have a negative impact on the provision for young people with an EHCP. The preferred option for the LA is MODEL B. This is because the level of the reduction for each individual EHCP is lower.

74

Other proposals put forward through the consultation process were:

• That the budget deficit should be met through the use of Council reserves. This is not a preferred option because Council reserves are for the use in emergencies rather than for funding of service provision.

• Allocating funding from alternative Council budgets. This is not a preferred option because all budget lines within the Council are under some form of budgetary pressure.

• Reduction in funding for the Council’s central SEND Service budget they receive from HNB and that the service look to absorb this reduction through service changes being made. Whilst this is not an option being consulted upon, we will look at how we can make this service the most efficient in terms of its use of resources and the allocation from the HNB this service receives.

• Reduction of the funding allocated to support the BACME (Behaviour, Attendance and Children Missing Education) Service from the HNB allocation. Whilst this is not an option being consulted upon, we will look at what changes we can make to this service and identify if any reductions from the allocation from the HNB this service receives are viable.

Although the above proposals are not being consulted upon (because these are not the preferred options for the reasons outlined) we will ensure that Cabinet are informed of these options when they make their decision.

We also want to inform you of other steps we propose to take to improve the way we arrange alternative provision and evaluation of the resource ladder.

1 - Alternative Provision – Forest Pathways This current provision is particularly expensive, (when compared to other provisions). It is proposed to facilitate other arrangements through commissioning a new provider which combines Year 11 with a similar provision for Years 12 and 13. This would have the advantage of providing opportunities for current Year 11s to engage in mainstream learning opportunities from a much earlier stage, thereby enhancing their life chances considerably. Our proposal is to commission this new service from George Monoux College.

2 - SEND Success Outreach Contract and Home Hospital Contracts The Director of Learning in negotiations with the Whitefield and Hornbeam special academy trusts through their commissioning groups. Whitefield (SEND Success), and Hornbeam (Home Hospital), have both agreed to provide an amended service offer which protects the quality of the current service delivery, but represents far better value for money for the HNB.

3 – Creation of a new ‘Resource Ladder Working Group’. The current system of allocating funding through the Education Health Care Plans (EHCPs) is in need of a comprehensive review since it is based on data, practice and contextual statistics from nearly ten years ago. The proposal is to establish a working group now to complete a system-wide evaluation of processes. This would encompass review of protocols, pathways and the systems for banding/resource levels. The group will be comprised of membership to ensure that the needs and voices of children, young adults and their parents/carers are considered with regards to any changes to the current system; in accordance with HNB principles; and in line with SEND code of practice. This group will be tasked with identifying any further changes needed to the Resource

75 Ladder to establish a fit for purpose system which, subject to any consultation obligations and decision making, is intended would be implemented from September 2020.

FAQs Q. How many young people in Waltham Forest have an existing EHCP? And on what levels? A. 1,643. E – 439, F - 935 Q. How many young people are there in our special schools? A. 785 (includes some out of Borough) Q. When were the current banding levels agreed? A. 2013/14 Q. Why are there so many different banding levels? A. This is based on historical decisions made by Schools Forum in previous meetings. Q. How do we compare with other LAs? A. When comparing Waltham Forest with our local neighbours, and when looking at National figures, it is clear that WF currently allocates a far higher level of ‘top up’ funding within EHCPs. Q. How do the proposed changes to the bandings affect my child’s EHCP? If they are going to get less money this will mean their needs will not be met. A. The proposed changes under model A will affect the funding applied to all children’s EHCPs from 1 April 2020. The level of funding provided to schools to meet individual children’s special educational needs is made up from different elements from the High Needs Budget that is provided to schools. Under model A it is anticipated that reviews would commence as soon as the decision is made which provides the opportunity for the local authority to consider what the right Resource Level is for your child.

The proposed changes under model B will affect the funding level applied to children only where their banding is currently at Level E and F. The number of children on E and F levels is 1,374 out of a total of 1,643 EHCPs. As indicated the level of funding provided to schools to meet individual children’s special educational needs is made up from different elements from the High Needs Budget that is provided to schools. If this model is agreed, then the changes will apply to all children in mainstream schools on the current levels E and F from April. A child can be moved to a higher band and can have individual items of provision funded separately from the Resource Level funding where this is thought appropriate. Schools may raise issues when they think a resource level needs to change for a child as can parents and carers. There is a legal obligation to meet assessed needs.

In both of these options the Council is making changes in order to meet the aim of setting a balanced budget. This is not the same as setting a capped budget over which no further funding would be available for individual children should they need it.

CONSULTATION DETAILS

Schools, parents and carers and stakeholders are asked to comment on the proposals contained within this document through completion of the online survey or by sending responses to [email protected] by 5pm on 9 December 2019.

Click here to complete the survey

David Kilgallon, Director of Learning and System Leadership

Tel 020 8496 3504 [email protected]

76 Consultation Survey Questions

1. Do you think that bands should continue to be different for primary and secondary schools? Yes or no?

2. If we adopt option A (same banding for primary and secondary schools), do you agree with the proposed bands? Yes or No? If no, why?

3. If we adopt option B (different banding for primary and secondary schools), do you agree with the proposed bands? Yes or No? If no, why?

4. Do you have any other comments on our proposals for EHCP banding?

77

Meeting / Date SCHOOLS FORUM Agenda Item 9B 11 December 2019 Report Title Interim Consultation Response report

Decision/Discussion/ For Consideration and Discussion by all Information Report Author/ David Kilgallon; Director of Learning and Systems Contact details Leadership

[email protected]

020 8496 3504

Appendix Interim Consultation Report

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The appended paper has been submitted on behalf of the Local Authority.

1.2 This is the interim consultation response report in respect of the consultation being undertaken by the Local Authority in relation to the proposed changes to HNB Funding. An updated version of this report will be published on 10th December after the consultation ends on 9th December.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Schools Forum to note the contents of this paper.

78

High Needs Block Consultation Responses as at 4 December 2019

Question 1.

Responses Number of Responders Yes, bands should be different (with secondary receiving more funding) 6 Yes, bands should be different (with primary receiving more funding) 2 No, bands should be the same 5 Bands should be based on needs 9 Lack of enough information to be able to make a decision 7 Other 1 Total 30

Question 1 comments:

1. However I think secondary school should be funded more than primary school as kids tend to develop more complex SEMH needs at this point. 2. Banding should depend on a child's needs as it is stated in the EHCP not their age 3. This is because I think that banding should depend on a childs needs as set out in the Education, Health and care plan 4. I haven’t been given sufficient information 5. Banding should depend on a child’s needs as set out in the Education,Health and Care Plan, and not their age. 6. Seems wrong for banding & therefore funding to be determined by age rather than reflecting needs as set out in an a EHC plan - their need for support won’t suddenly change when they move into Year 7. 7. Banding should depend on a child's needs as set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan, not their age. Age alone is not a reliable classification for kids with Autism 8. Because primary schools should provide more support to identify children's need at an early age and meet those need properly

79

9. I don't know as do not fully understand the implications of not 10. Both Primary and Secondary require similar funding especially if the individual has severe disabilities 11. I don't have experience with secondary school yet. 12. Banding should depend on child’s needs 13. During secondary school I feel children will have to develop their social skills and develop more confidence, this can be discussed with the school to do extra clubs and activities to use the funding from thier Funding. 14. Would be happy for the level to be set at £7,137 throughout rather than have the significant cut to level E to £5000 15. Too confusing 16. You haven't provided enough information for me to make a proper decision on this 17. whilst children in primary school need more support, this should continue to senior school 18. Banding is a blanket policy and is unlawful 19. secondary children needs are equally the same as primary or other way round. 20. I don't understand this question. There is insufficient information provided to answer. I thought the EHCP was based on a child's needs and not a blanket banding of provision. This whole "consultation' is confusing and unclear. 21. Nothing in the consultaton explains the need for different bands between prinary and secondary schools. Bands are irrelevant anyway, the LA should fund according to need, not according to prescribed bands 22. No idea as proposals are drafted in a complicated way 23. It should be the same as every child's needs is difference and the government are a disgrace trying to dave money by cuttings our services and for you to think one model firs all which it dose not the local council should understand that 24. There is no rationale for why primary pupils are funded at a higher level than secondary. The needs of pupils at Secondary level are more complex, and they tend to develop more complex SEMH needs at this point. Pupils study a broader curriculum, and have many more teachers and specialist resources at secondary. There is a strong case for higher levels of funding for secondary rather than primary, but it is unfair that primary pupils receive a higher level of ECHP funding 25. because for me there is more students in secondary schools than primary 26. Secondary have larger orveall budgets than primary and are in a better position financially to support children with EHCP 27. Needs for older children are complex and often requires more for various reasons. 28. I think secondary schools should be the same level as primary or higher levels of funding. Mainstream secondary education is more far more challenging for children with EHCPs. Learning assistants need to be more skilled and more highly trained to cope with these needs. Students, at Secondary, need help in a greater variety of ways. 29. The end users are all children. Why differentiate and discriminate against individual children on grounds of their age? 30. staffing and provision still cost the same, so why shouldn't funding be

80

Question 2.

Responses Number of Responders Yes, agree with model A 2 No, disagree with model A 1 No, secondary should receive more funding 5 No, primary should have more funding 1 No, reject all cuts 7 Concerns about the impact of the cuts/quality of provision delivered by school 14 Bands should be based on needs 6 Lack of enough information to be able to make a decision 3 Other 2 Total 40

Question 2 comments: 1. Banding should depend on a child's needs as it is stated in the EHCP, not same banding for primary and secondary 2. because band G will be removed which will effect many children in the school as they wont receive the right amount of funding needed and then how will there needs be met with reduced funding? 3. Under Model A, band G has been reduced to the same funding as band F. There will be shortage in funding of children in band G which will affect meeting the needs of the children in the band. 4. Model A represents a significant reduction to level 1, putting SEN children in the lower categories at a distinct disadvantage. 5. will schools be able to provide the agreed levels of support to all their pupils with EHC plans if funding is being cut from some and the school is expected to make up the shortfall? This will have a much bigger impact on some schools than others depending on how many pupils at each funding band they have - this also does not seem fair to implement indiscriminately. 6. children funded at level G will not be funded properly 7. I agree with the proposed bands because it's how option A is designed for that i prefer model 8. I reject both models and any cuts to funding

81

9. They need to be the same or more, not less 10. Too low for band E 11. They need to look again for their decision 12. Children’s funding will be reduced, it will be not enough, pupils and schools will be struggle. They need lots of help, please stop reducing 13. During secondary school I feel the child will need more support with academic and social activities to help their progress. The funding needs to be enough to cover the costing of an LSA for the academic subjects. 14. I believe that the difference between the existing funding level and the proposed funding band is too great 15. Because cuts for band E and F are huge 16. We need a system wide review that adequately assesses the needs of all SEND children in the borough. This model is based on arbitrary information and therefore I can no 17. No. You should not be taking money away from the children in our borough who have the least chance in life and education 18. No see below 19. Level 1 (band E) should have more money. If you reduce the funding, then you should give 7000 to each school on band E. 20. I don't believe in blanket banding. All funding should be differentiated based on needs. There should be no blanket provision of funding. I thought what was in the EHCP plan had to be funded legally. This is confusing and unclear. 21. Resorces should be given to schools according to their needs and requirements. 22. The needs will be different due to how schools are made up, demography,class sizes, teacher access 23. See previous point -The funding should be based on need, not bands. Nothing i the consultation suggests that you have taken into account the needs of the chidlren 24. Don't believe it will meet the needs of the children it is there to service 25. No idea as proposals are drafted in a complicated way 26. I believe secondary schools need more funding to assist Sen children giving them more of a opportunity to be able to leave school with some sort of qualification and feeling supported by various agencies who work with them within the school I believe secondary schools need more funding as the children are more pressured into succeeding than they are in a primary school 27. Whilst we agree that banding must be simplified as it is currently unfair, overly complex and the rationale is not clear. However, there is no safeguarding for pupils in SRPs and these changes will cost XXX school approximately £30,000 a year. This is additional to the cuts to our High Budget through the additional proposal (which not included in this feedback form) to take 1.5% of our school budget for the Borough High Needs block. This will cost the school approximately £90,000 per year. Therefore, these costs alone will put XXX School back into a deficit budget situation with over £120,000 of cuts (therefore whilst balancing the councils HNB budget, you are just passing the deficit elsewhere). We cannot meet the needs of our ECHP pupils within our current depleted budget, any further cuts will have a hugely detrimental impact on the support we offer our pupils. We will be forced to further cut our Teaching Assistants, and it will mean that our most vulnerable pupils will find school even more challenging for them. The risk of increasing social exclusion is significant. 28. Most students that are in secondary come with alot more higher needs then a primary, this is because of housing, poverty, drugs, mental health and gangs. There are alot of secondary students that are within these reasons but so are their there parents, so is it not better to help and provide as a secondary/primary and as a brough than to ignore 29. Secondary should get more funding 30. I do not understand this consultation. 31. See below 32. Primary level sets the foundations for future education and requires greater attention. 33. A very large percentage reduction for Band E, which may drastically affect the support 34. the majority of children receive either E or F level funding so this means the 10% cut will affect most of the children receiving extra help in schools. This means schools will have a drastic budget cut and the needs of those children are not going to be met. 35. Secondary students have greater needs 36. Any diminishing of financial support for schools places an unacceptable pressure on schools where budgets have already been brutally slashed. To take money away from disabled children is a stain on this council and a shame to the whole borough. 37. Early intervention is key. Primary school should be able to have more funding to put in the interventions and support as soon as possible. 38. This enormous cut will significantly and negatively affect my son's education. 39. Secondary school require more input and support due to level of work given and expectations.

82

40. ultimately this would mean less funding for a high percentage of my pupils

Question 3. – 74 responses –

Response categories Number of Responders Request the same funding for primary and secondary 3 Request not to make any changes at all/reject proposal for change 7 Concerns about the impact of the cuts/quality of provision delivered by school 13 Funding should be based on need 2 Found the consultation to be complicated and unclear/lack of sufficient information to 4 be able to make a decision Specifically concerned about the impact changes will have for respondent’s individual 2 child Other 3 Total 34

*Please note, some responses address more than one category and have been recorded based on the concerns addressed.

Question 3 comments

1. The school would not be able to meet the complex needs of the children when the funding is reduced or option B is adopted 2. Because it will impact the quality of education and support children receive in mainstream schools. It is already hard for children with special educational needs at mainstream schools giving them less funding will not help them at all. 3. This will have huge impact on the quality of education for children in mainstream schools 4. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate how this loss in funding can be implemented without any impact on the quality of support and education for children with a EHC plans. 5. This reduces funding for bands E and F in mainstream schools by 10%

83

6. Don’t really agree but cannot see another option. However, could not have option B and lose money from our budgets as schools. 7. Schools need more funding not the opposite 8. No I reject both models and any cuts to funding 9. They need to be the same or more, not less 10. I’m not sure how it will affect my child. 11. No, as the level for secondary level E is significantly lower than the proposed primary level 12. We need a system wide review that adequately assesses the needs of all SEND children in the borough. This model is based on arbitrary information and therefore I can no 13. Its still not enough money to support and give these children a good education that they deserve 14. 83% of children within E and F band will subject budget cuts, why? Why? Why E and F? It's so unfair! If that will have a cut, everyone should be cut, not only E and F! 15. It should be all equal share would be fear 16. Because the 10% Reduction on Band E & F will affect the EHCP. 17. You’re still making cuts through this option which will affect my child’s education. 18. Level funding should remain the same throughout primary and secondary years 19. Not sufficient information to answer. Unclear, confusing. Don't believe in blanket banding. 20. It is better the funding, remains as it is 21. My son will lose out on his education as he is in band F and the mainstream school will not be able to meet his needs. We have tried to have the EHCP reassessed and this was rejected, it’s not as easy as telling parents they can have their child looked at again and the level of funding can change. SEN provision in Waltham Forest is pretty appalling as it is, this will make things so much worse for young people 22. Special need kids needs more support just before they can go to secondary school. 23. Again, you should be funding based on need. Nothing in the consultation suggests what happens if a child's provision falls between two bands. 24. 10% reduction towards the funding may mean less support or poorer teaching to the SEND students, when they should be receiving as much help as possible. 25. Too big a drop on Level F which will lead to vital support being withdrawn 26. No idea as proposals are drafted in a complicated way 27. It should stay the same as every child's need is difference and it's a disgra that you and the government are trying cut corners and think other models in other councils will fit ours. One model dose not fit all as every community has diffrent needs 28. Whilst we welcome the safeguarding of funding for pupils in the SRP within this model, and the simplified banding, we cannot accept any cuts to current banding levels. Every penny of this funding is currently used to support our pupils (who are often complex cases with multiple needs) achieve in a mainstream setting. Any reduction in funding will reduce the support we provide to these pupils. As stated previously, there is no evidence to support more funding at primary compared to secondary as in fact costs for ECHP pupils are far higher at a secondary level 29. I do not believe there should be any cuts at all 30. This is because the level of the reduction for each individual EHCP is lower 31. No reduction in budge is going to make a good outcome. 32. Any diminishing of financial support for schools places an unacceptable pressure on schools where budgets have already been brutally slashed. To take money away from disabled children is a stain on this council and a shame to the whole borough 33. It is less severe and detrimental than option A. But of course I do not agree. My son is barely receiving the help he needs now. The school is struggling to meet his needs and needs of other SEN children. This borough spends huge amounts of fireworks and new flats. New fancy fountains outside the town hall. I think it is shocking and appalling that vulnerable SEN children should be the ones to take the cuts. 34. Ultimately this would mean less funding for a high percentage of my pupil

84

Question 4. 55 Responses

Response categories Number of Responders Schools cannot cope with the funding cuts 7 Funding should be based on the needs of the child 3 Concern about the impact funding reduction will have for individual child 5 Council should access additional funding from the government/elsewhere and not 6 make cuts Agree option A 1 Agree option B 2 Reject both models 9 Reject model B 1 Secondary should receive more funding 1 Do not understand the consultation/insufficient information to make an informed 7 choice Reject Models A and B and instead adopt the following Waltham Forest SEND Crisis 1 ‘Children First’ option. Other 12 Total responses 55

Question 4 comments:

1. Cost of staffing, equipment and other resources has gone up while the funding banding has remain the same for several years. I would suggest the funding and the schools budget should not be reduce so that our children can receive best education and support as set out in their EHCP 2. The funding that (our School) receives has been the same for 8 years but the cost of staff and equipment has gone up if there are any more reductions in funding then it will have significant impact on children. Also the level of funding given should depend on a child's needs as set out in their Education Health Care plan and funding should not be reduced because the council has overspent. 3. The amount of funding should depend on a child’s needs as set out in their Education,Health and Care Plan and should not be reduced. Also I do not think Special Schools (xxx) could afford the proposed 1.5% from the budget 4. The council is assuming that the flexibility in schools operational budgets will absorb the proposed reduction. This is another sad indication of the council's lack of effort to protect SEN children in its care. These proposals represent the council meeting its basic statutory requirement, and not its obligations to these most vulnerable children with in our community. The council should be making a greater effort to access the government's newly proposed additional funding for SEN children,as proposed as part of their eduction budget's uplift. 5. These proposals seem to shift the financial burden onto the schools, who have been providing support to children with SEN with budgets that have fallen in real terms since banding levels were set 6 years ago. It is impossible to conceive how agreed support plans can suddenly be provided on significantly smaller budgets. We understand that the council is under budgetary pressure but cannot see how it can fulfil legal requirements to our children in full. 6. I find it totally unacceptable that you are asking (School) to give back 1.5% from their budget as they clearly cannot afford it at all. Funding bands have been the same for 8 years but staff costs have increased. I would also point out that as a council, Waltham Forest has been throwing tax payers' money like confettis in recent years, over doing it with bike lanes that very few people use, like the one on Temple Mills Ln, it goes alongside the park, so guess what... people just go through the park.

85

How about the small linear park which you just rebuilt (next to the A12!). It was fine as it was before, it's just a dump next to the A12. Do you expect for people to go and seat on your brand new benches that face the partition wall overlooking the A12 and wait for the beautiful sunset maybe? you might think "it's from another budget" but i'd encourage you to go and speak to your colleagues, there's plenty of money around, no need to hit disabled kids. Examples are plenty. 7. Suggest that the parent group letter is taken into consideration prior to any final decision on finance of HNB. Insufficient time to have information in advance of meetings to have a quality informed discussion. 8. They need more spaces for mainstream secondary school. 9. For what I've read I prefer that option B is adopted but if option A is adopted then I suppose that this model would have done its best so that it doesn't affect too much in the education and care of children 10. I don't fully understand the consultation document. I reject both models A&B and indeed any cuts to funding based on what has been outlined in the consultation. I think there is insufficient information about other proposal to be able to make an informed decision on this. I don't feel any changes should be made until the Councils proposed System-wide evaluation of processes has taken place and been meaningfully consulted on 11. We need extra help for special need 12. Amount of funding for children should not be reduced. It should depends on child’s needs as set up in their EHCP, banding was the same for 8 years while costs of staffing and equipment and everything has gone up. If funding for children will be reduced it will be not enough, children and schools will be struggle . And we are disagree that xxx school needs to give back % from their budget , they cannot afford it . Please support SEN children and special schools. They really need it. Thank you. 13. I feel the funding for EHCP in secondary schools should be more compared to primary schools as the child will be studying academic subjects and taking exams with the extra support this will allow them to achieve their goals. During this time they need to develop on their social and confidence so extra clubs or activities will help them and this can be used from the fuding the child recieves. 14. Although I appreciate that Waltham Forest is currently funding above the level of other local authorities, I feel that the drop proposed for level E is so dramatic that it would have a major impact on my child's education. 15. We (X School) want to be consulted as soon as possible when there is a review of SRPs 16. Children diagnosed with mild disabilities don’t see any of this funding throughout their education, they struggle with no support. 17. We have a SRP, so hope that cuts to funding, when SRPs are reviewed, will bear in mind the specialist support that is necessary in order to enable good outcomes for our children. 18. There are many children in WF schools who should have an EHCP but don’t. 19. 1. I don't understand this consultation. I particularly don't understand the impact either of these models might have on my child. 2. I can't see how you can claim these funding cuts won't make any impact as schools are already struggling to meet needs. I know in our school parents are forking out from their own pocket for equipment because they feel there is no other option available to them. 3. The consultation seems very concerned with meeting financial legal obligations, but there is little mention of legal SEND obligations. Since there seems an incompatibility between those two legal obligations I would urge you to seek proper legal consultation on launching a Judicial Review against the Government. 4. I don't want either of these models and I have not been given sufficient information about the other options presented. I would like to know more about them and to be given a choice to opt for those. 20. You should be taking this money from emergency funding whilst applying for more money from the government or even upping our council taxes slightly to cover this. You should not be reducing the amount of money these children are given, they should be given more money to support themselves. You expect them to be in mainstream school and yet you take away the money for them to learn and deprive them from a decent education, especially for those in bands E and F who are able to be in mainstream school but need more support than other children

86

21. I strongly disagree with model B. Under B model, children on E and F is 1374 out of 1643 , that means 83%of them will affected. why only E and F band? E and F band's children are most likely to integrate into society through EHCP when they grow up! If less support is provided because of budget cuts, your LA lost basic meaning of EHCP!!! 22. is it possible for a meeting to be done on a weekend, so that all parents who have missed out on school meetings during the week cause of working schedules, to get involved, there are parents who feel left out to express how they feel ,there is more deeper things to discuss, written things at times is different to discuss in a group makes it easy, if some of us who under our disabled children better don’t get me wrong teachers play a good role to deal with difficult challenges at school, teachers also need therapy for some time it is as much stressful to both parents and teachers it’s not easy ,for parents it’s our children we have to leave with it for the rest of our lives, we need the support until they live school. 23. EHCP need more funding to the children of both Primary & Secondary Schools. Reduction on Bands would lead to more difficult situations for the children under EHCP which should not be implemented. The government should carry on the existing Funding without Reductions. 24. Our children have a right to an education. These cuts are destroying their life chances. You have not consulted properly giving just two days for considering responses between the deadline of 9/12and presenting on 11/12. According to the Surrey LA court case your consultation is unlawful as you have not given us a neutral option. 25. I'd rather accept Model A, if set funding for Level 1 (E) it's a bit higher - cap £7000 26. A very confusing document. Is this deliberate? Insufficient info provided about 'other proposed models' It seems the main target is to meet a budget and not meet the needs of the individual children. Even though I thought the EHCP was a legally binding document. Children's individual needs are currently not being met so quite confused how making cuts will meet the needs of vulnerable children. In regard to the proposed cuts being manageable for schools, this seems ludicrous seeing the cuts schools are already facing. To make schools 'absorb the changes' is ridiculous. There is no way this can happen without reducing or putting at risk the special educational provision of individual children. The schools are already under pressure, for the council to pass the buck and try to get out of their legal obligation to some of the most vulnerable children is frankly disgusting. I received this late compared to other parents and I know a high amount of parents that still have not received this consultation. Not much of a consultation. 27. I can say no or yes because i dont enough data and information 28. We need more support fort the children because schools and children struggle; therefore not enough staff. 29. My child will lose out in his provision in mainstream secondary and will not have his needs met. I may well then have to move him from the mainstream secondary school and put him in a special school. I can’t be the only one who thinks like this, his needs are not being met at the moment, reduced TA support, lack of intervention and potentially no future pathway for him. If the funding is even more reduced he will have to leave his current setting and this will end up costing more in the long run. I cannot believe that his potential budget cut would be over £1000 to the school, they cannot cope at the moment, his EHCP does not meet his needs, this funding formula means only less support for him. 30. The transition between primary and secondary school is more difficult and challenging for special needs they need a special budget to help them stay in mainstream secondary school and receive same opportunities as normal kids are receiving. 31. we maintain that irrespective of Model B now being proposed over Model A, at present they are being carried out purely for the purposes of balancing the Council’s budget rather than on the basis of children’s need. In the recent High Court Judgement, in which cuts to SEND funding proposed by Bristol City Council were quashed, the court noted that the Council’s ‘decision-making process appears to be driven entirely from the standpoint of ensuring a balanced budget by 2020/21.’ Sadly, we believe the same applied here. Having acknowledged that ‘The current system of allocating funding … is in need of a comprehensive review since it is based on data, practice and contextual statistics from nearly ten years ago’ surely the logical conclusion to draw is that the mooted ‘system- wide evaluation of processes’ should take place before any changes to banding are made (it is worth

87

noting that had the Council instigated this at the outset of the consultation six months ago, this could have been well underway). At present, the Council seems to have no real knowledge of the level of need in the Borough (either for those with EHCPs or those without) – meaningful research and impact assessment needs to be conducted in order to gather such knowledge. Without it, any proposed cuts have no basis in addressing the needs of children, and are simply stabs in the dark aimed at balancing the budget. We believe this is reckless, unlawful, and has the potential to inflict long-term damage on vulnerable children. We are therefore calling on the Council to reject Models A and B and instead adopt the following Waltham Forest SEND Crisis ‘Children First’ option. This consists of Waltham Forest Council committing to the following: · Guaranteeing that funding and banding is maintained at existing levels ­– if necessary, drawing on Council reserves – until the proposed ‘system-wide evaluation of processes’ (which should include meaningful impact assessments and analysis of EHCPs at all banding levels, as well as consideration of children with SEND needs who do not currently have an EHCP) has been completed and its resultant recommendations have been put to meaningful public consultation. · Further to the above, as a bare minimum, publicly guaranteeing that funding and banding is maintained at existing levels for at least the duration of the current (2019-20 school year). At present, it is only guaranteed until April 2020, which we are aware is making budget planning for schools incredibly difficult. · (As discussed at the Stakeholder Engagement Meetings) providing schools with a ‘model template’ for provision maps and clear guidelines on costing, to allow clearer comparisons across schools of the costs associated with EHCPs at various banding levels, and more transparency for parents. · (As discussed at the Stakeholder Engagement Meetings) conducting a full assessment of proportion of Higher Needs Block funding goes towards what might be considered ‘health’ rather than ‘education’ needs, and whether any of these costs might be covered by relevant healthcare budgets. · (Should sufficient funding is not forthcoming from central government to meet the needs of children in the borough following the ‘system-wide evaluation of processes’) taking central government to Judicial Review, arguing that Waltham Forest Council is no longer able to meet its lawful obligations regarding the funding of children with additional needs. · Launching a ‘fund our borough’ campaign, using all means within the Council’s disposal to advocate for parents and raise awareness of the funding crisis, including persistent, assertive and transparent lobbying of central government. Regarding the current consultation process and consultation document, there are a number of questions it raises that we believe need addressing. These include: · The Council’s costings and approach as outlined in the consultation is based on the budget announced by the current Conservative government. Given the election of a Labour (or coalition) government would mean a sea-change in the funding landscape for SEND children, surely on purely practical grounds it is incumbent on the Council to delay the current phase of the consultation until after the 12 December election. This has been put to the Council, which has so far refused, for reasons we are am currently unaware of. This decision seems particularly perverse given Clare Coghill’s, Leader of Waltham Forest Council, publicly stated earlier this year that, ‘is vital that sustainable levels of additional funding for SEND provision are introduced as soon as possible. We have not yet had answers that provides any commitment to increasing support for these families in need. This is why we have decided to delay taking a formal decision on SEND funding proposals following our consultation earlier this year.’ Surely, if a lack of clarity on available funding from central government was the rationale for delaying the consultation previously, the current situation means further delay until at least after the general election is necessary? · Parents are still struggling to understand the consultation document – parents have said ‘I don't understand a word of it’ and described it as ‘incomprehensible gobbledegook’ online. In the original consultation, four public meetings were arranged to explain what was then the proposed model (which is now the ‘rejected’ Model A). Given an entirely new model is now being proposed, why have public meetings not been arranged to explain it to parents? · The information the Council has provided about the ‘other options’ to meet the shortfall (for example, meeting the budget deficit through the use of Council reserves, or allocating funding from alternative Council budgets) is insufficient to allow parents to make an informed choice on them. Furthermore, the consultation document and questionnaire makes clear that the Council is seeking parents’ views specifically on Models A and B and not on these ‘other options’ – this means most consultees will not know that they can provide their views on the other options. How does the Council intend on addressing this

88

flaw in the consultation? · It is not clear from the consultation document why, under Model A or Model B, the Council states that it is ‘possible for Waltham Forest’s schools to absorb the changes proposed in these levels, without reducing or putting at risk the special educational provision of individual children.’ Please could the Council provide clarification and supporting evidence backing up this assertion? · Re: the Council’s assertion that it has ‘carried out sample research around the provision for children receiving “E band” funding.’ As far as we are aware, all sample research has been carried out on E Band EHCPs, reflecting the original plan (Model A) to significantly cut Band E. No research or sampling appears to have been conducted on Band F EHCPs, which under the new recommended Model (B) will be subject to a 10% cut. Therefore, is not the statements that ‘As part of these proposals the LA has carried out sampling exercises across a range of existing EHCPs’ and ‘Both proposals have been examined through the sampling of EHCPs chosen at random from the current population’ actively misleading? And, surely, given these proposed cuts, research and impact assessments must be carried out into Band F EHCPs if the decision taken is to reflect need, rather than budget? · As has previously been pointed out to the Council, the comparisons drawn between Waltham Forest and neighbouring boroughs are not “like for like” comparisons. Amongst other issues, these comparisons are based on very simplistic max. and min. spends by council, and contain no averages, frequency per band or information about alternative spend on centralised services. Director of Learning David Kilgallon reported in a consultation meeting that he couldn’t get hold of this information. Is it not the case that if such information is ‘unavailable’, comparisons between councils becomes meaningless, and the justification of comparative spending illegitimate? To give a specific example, while other London Boroughs such as Islington by provide lower banding funding, they also provide significant centralised services such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, early years intervention etc. In Waltham Forest such services are largely paid out of EHCP funding. We would also point out that in recent years in Waltham Forest speech therapy, occupational therapy and early years intervention services have been decimated, with funding for these services cut to the bone. · There are multiple references throughout the document (e.g. “There is still a budget deficit and a need for the Council to consider making changes to the banding model in order to bring about the aim that a balanced budget in HNB is achieved for 2020-2021.”) that indicate the Council’s objective is to meet budgetary requirements rather than meet the needs of children in the borough. As has been made clear in the case of that Bristol parents brought against Bristol City Council highly, the High Court has made clear that decisions must be based on need, rather than simply balancing the budget. How does the Council account for this? · Re: ‘It is proposed that Special Schools and Schools Forum should agree to a request for a 1.5% transfer from Special Schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Block.’ We are aware that the rules have changed for special schools whereby a cut in funding cannot be imposed upon them (at least, as we understand it, without asking for special dispensation from central government). It is unclear from the consultation document how the other cuts/changes might be impacted should special schools refuse to take a cut – please could the Council clarify this? · Re: ‘The current banding system is complex and there are numerous levels within each banding. It is not possible to present as part of this consultation the full range of financial bandings since that runs into several pages.’ We have seen the various bandings and are unclear why the Council say it would run to several pages. Furthermore, the table shows ‘the lower thresholds for bands “E” to “I” so that you can see the current funding for those lowest thresholds in those bands.’ and is a ‘Summary of our current “Top Up” banding thresholds at the lowest points’: but our understanding is that this is misleading, as it implies that these are the lowest amount of top-up children can get at these bands (i.e. some children are getting more), when in fact these are specified ‘points’ on a ladder, rather than bands, that imply a range. Could the Council clarify this point, and also provide the full details of banding that supposedly ‘run to several pages’? · Re: ‘It is, we believe, possible for Waltham Forest’s schools to absorb the changes proposed in these levels, without reducing or putting at risk the special educational provision of individual children.’ and re: Model A ‘The proposed funding amounts in this model we believe more closely reflect the exact levels of provision required to meet the needs identified within the EHCPs that have been reviewed. This has been supported by our review of a sample of current EHCP provision.’ The Council’s originally proposed model (Model A) reduced Band E top-up funding to £5k, whereas the new Model B reduces it to £7.85k. It is difficult to understand why

89

in the original instance the Council said £5k would be sufficient based on its research, whereas it is now proposing £7.85k. In recommending Model B, is the Council saying Model A’s £5k is insufficient (which contradicts the quote above)? Or if it does think Model A’s £5k is sufficient, is it saying that Model B’s £7.85k is excessive? Furthermore, the stated rationale given by the Council for the originally proposed Model A was that Band F contained the ‘most vulnerable’ children and therefore the level of top-up funding should be protected. However, it is now proposing a 10% cut in funding – what has changed in the interim for the original rationale to be disregarded, especially given, as mentioned above, no research or sampling appears to have been performed on Band F EHCPs? · Re:‘One issue to consider when proposing any reduction to the ‘top up’ funding (element 3), is that schools have considerable operational flexibility in their daily use of resources in making the appropriate provision for pupils in their school. This could be provision in a typical classroom setting or may be based on practice that encompasses the wider, whole school provision. The provision made for a pupil with an EHCP in a mainstream school is not made in isolation from the rest of the staff or school, where staffing levels and resources are regularly altered dependent on need. In this context, we believe that the proposed reduction in funding for a pupil over the course of a year is something that is appropriate and manageable.’ Surely the implication of this (and, indeed, much anecdotal evidence suggests this) is that a school’s general funds and resources are being used to support SEND children. Given schools’ budgets have already been cut and, in many cases, are at breaking point, surely saying that ‘wider, whole school provision’ might cover gaps left by reduced funding is going to put a strain on budgets and resources that already have no leeway? · Re: ‘Allocating funding from alternative Council budgets. This is not a preferred option because all budget lines within the Council are under some form of budgetary pressure. The Council has previously stated it is not permitted to use money from other Council budgets to help fund the Higher Needs Block. This seems to imply that the Council could in theory use alternative Council budgets, but are choosing not to. Please could the Council provide clarity on this? 32. I don't understand the information provided and don't feel informed enough to make a comment 33. If Model A is adopted, will it then be sustainable for the long term? Currently, the banding for primary and secondary are separated, if Model A goes through would the SEND students still receive the same quality of support and teaching even after the banding for primary and secondary are put together. 34. Schools are being required to go beyond what is reasonable to find internal funding to support children that need it. Our son is band F which is already too low to meet his needs. These changes will result in even poorer support for him and more pressure on a school that is already struggling. 35. We received this letter about HNB Budget Funding 2020-2021. The way this latter has been drafted is beyond a laymans understanding and we believe that this has been done intentionally. Our answers to the above questions are just guess work and not more than that. Who ever is dealing with this issue will really understand the issue if his/her own kid would be a special one. 36. The Local Authority must deliver each year within the allotted budget whilst still meet the children of EHCPs needs to help them build their future education. 37. Same as above 38. personally believe that EHCP banding should be looked at closely it has taken me years to fight for my child to get one and get her in the settings she needs i.e. Special needs school. I however know of parents who have lied to doctors cams education authorities about their child to get them a ehcp just so they can claim dla and carers allowance and also tell their children how to act around the relevant agencies to get them into special needs schools when they could cope in a mainstream this infuriates me as a parent who's child has significant needs and had a fight to get what my daughter deserves so as well as Banding i also suggest more regular checks are done as appeals are usually won and sometimes to those who are not deserving of the funding. I also believe that the lower banding funding should be managed in a mainstream school where children can get appropriate one to one salt etc... rather than than Special needs schools taking children on the lower banding when they could actually be in a mainstream school with the added help they need with the funding on a lower band. 39. These proposals will only have the effect of transferring the financial burden from the local authority onto schools, who are already incredibly financially pressed. It is concerning that the issues raised in

90

the initial consultation have not been addressed or referred to in this consultation, and that the needs of pupils have not been referred to. Maintained schools, do a very good job of providing an inclusive education for pupils with SEND and enabling them to develop the skills and knowledge to achieve GCSEs and move onto the next phase of their education. However, this is done through dedicated TAs and teachers and the financial support which we receive through the ECHPs. This achieves huge cost efficiencies for the LA, as we ensure that many pupils do not need Special Schools which are more expensive and free these places for the pupils who need them more. We also avoid these pupils becoming excluded and necessitating more expensive provision elsewhere. Investment in mainstream SEND will save costs in the future. These proposals will limit our ability to provide this support, we will have to lose valuable staff to avoid a deficit and ultimately our pupils will not receive the support laid out in their EHCP plans. 40. NO THANKS 41. No 42. Thanks 43. The funding needs to be higher for EHCP, for reasons given above, the quote that the goverment has given for the past so many years is that EVERY CHILD MATTERS, so lets make them matter and without funding this is going to get worse 44. I do not believe there should be any cuts at all. This entire programme of proposed cuts is detrimental to all our children education. Please approach the Government for more funding. 45. No 46. No 47. No 48. In future all SEND money needs to be ring fenced to stop this sort of thing happening in the future. How are schools going to meet the legal obligations of the EHC plans if their budgets are drastically reduced? 49. You are taking money from vulnerable people. Schools already have to find £6000 per child with a EHCP. They *do not* have this money. Instead of protecting schools from the brutal treatment of this government you are piling the pain on top of them. You should be looking to challenge the government, not punish the children under your care. 50. I feel that you should be ashamed of cutting the funding for children with EHCPs. Have you actually measured the need of children with SEN in schools? If you did you would find that the real need is far higher than the funding that is being given to schools. In my son's class there are 4/5 other children who have SEN. They do not have EHCPs and therefore have no assistance for things like dyslexia and ADHD. My son's learning assistant also helps these other SEN kids. If you cut my son's funding it won't just be my son that suffers it will be these other kids too. They are on the SEN register. Why is there no support for them? And when kids are unsupported they become disengaged and disruptive. Teachers spend all their time trying to quieten these kids down or remove them from the classroom. None of the kids in the class are then learning. We should be increasing spending - not cutting. You are failing the SEN children in this borough. 51. No 52. Banding needs to be fair and reflect each individual childs needs it can not be done in a 'blanket' way. Schools should have more of a say regarding each childs needs and support that is required to help them to achieve maximum potential. 53. Next time you send out a letter via schools like this, explain your abbreviations and acronyms in the letter itself. A one-page summary of what you are proposing would be usefully attached to such letters. 54. This is a very brief survey and doesn't give us the option to state whether we prefer Option A or Option B. My ORIGINAL preference was Option A BUT now I feel Option B is a) more financially viable and b) will obviate the likelihood of a reducing number of F EHCPs and an increasing number of Es. I would take exception to the notion that schools can easily "absorb" these reductions due to our "considerable operational flexibility". There will be nothing easy about it and there will be an impact. However, I recognise the need to live within our means.

91

55. pupils on current band receiving a particular amount of funding should continue to receive that. if additional bands were to be added they could be new band with current model. essentially creating a band between E and F. new applications could then be considered for this badning

Off line responses received

29th November 2019

Dear Mr Kilgallon,

Re: Consultation on allocation of High Needs Funding 2020/21

I am writing on behalf of XXX Governing Body and senior managers of XXX School in relation to your consultation on the allocation of High Needs Funding 2020/21.

We are extremely concerned with any cuts to funding allocations as we have a Specialist Resource Provision and are concerned with the level of service we are able to offer our pupils and families with any cuts to funding. We understand the proposal is not due to impact on the Specialist Resource Provision (SRP) at present and that a separate review will take place for all SRPs.

Having considered both options, we believe that option B is the option we would favour, although this would mean a loss of some of the provision we offer to the children who need support and are outside of the SRP.

We are supportive of all schools taking responsibility for SEND provision across the borough and although the proposed 0.15% would have an adverse impact on our school budget overall, we understand that this may be the best option for the majority of schools across the board.

We would welcome early consultation when the review of SRPs is due to take place and would welcome meetings at the school, or centrally, with key stakeholders to ensure that the needs of the children in our care continues to be at the heart of all that we hope to achieve.

Yours sincerely

Dear Mr Kilgallon,

High Needs Block Consultation (November 2019) - Response from XXX School

I am writing on behalf of the Governing Body and Senior Leadership Team of XXX School in response to your second consultation document in which you have outlined the proposals of the Local Authority to change the way High Needs Funding is allocated in the Borough. Our concerns echo those concerns which were clearly expressed in our first consultation response in June 2019.

These proposals are driven by the need to achieve financial savings. Whilst we understand the challenging context we are in, we cannot agree to any changes which will have an adverse impact on our most vulnerable pupils. In addition, these proposed reductions need to be placed in a broader context of ever reducing school budgets and increasing costs. In short, our school cannot continue to offer the current level of provision with any further reduction. This will have a detrimental effect on vulnerable pupils, and those who are already most at risk of social exclusion.

92

We, again, urge the Local Authority to safeguard the High Needs Block at the current level of funding, and not to ask schools to contribute to the Block nor reduce current funding levels. We already struggle to meet the needs of our ECHP pupils, as laid out in their EHCP, within our current funding. Any further reductions will mean that we will have to make further reductions to their provision which will mean that we cannot meet the needs of these pupils.

The Context of SEND at XXX School

XXX School is an inclusive 11-16 community school. We currently have 52 pupils with an ECHP, including within our Autism Resourced Provision. We offer a bespoke and highly successful education for SEND pupils within a mainstream setting. All of our pupils are in mainstream all of the time, and our provision has been assessed as an Outstanding provider of mainstream SEND (Swiss Cottage, Challenge Partners) enabling our SEND to be fully included within the school community and leave the school with skills and qualifications to make succession progression into FE and adult life.

XXX School has significantly more pupils with ECHPs than other mainstream schools. 5.6% of our pupils have an ECHP, whereas the Waltham Forest secondary school average is 1.9%. Therefore, XXX School is far more affected by these proposals than other schools.

Our response to the new consultation proposals

1. A transfer from the schools budget for all schools to the High Needs Budget of 0.15%

Our response: We object to this proposal. If we were to transfer 0.15% of our total budget (post MFG) then this would equate to £90,000. This is equivalent to over 3 Teaching Assistants or 2 teachers (in costs). In addition, we would be receiving significantly less income for pupils with ECHPs. Therefore, this change alone would lead to a significant cut in resourcing and staff for SEND pupils.

2. A Transfer of 1.5% of Special Schools funding to the rest of the High Needs Budget

Our response: We object to this proposal. The reserves in Special Schools, to our understanding, are funds which have been ring fenced for necessary capital projects and/or to offset future reductions. They support the highest need pupils, who have multiple and complex needs. Any reduction to their funding would have a significant impact on their provision and pupils and is not a viable long term solution.

In addition, there is no contingency in these proposals for if the Special Schools refuse to transfer their funding. There cannot be any guarantee that the Dfe will force this decision. Therefore, what would the Local Authority do in this circumstance?

3. Proposed changes to funding bands for ECHPs

Model 1: Simplified Resource Ladder Our response: We object to this proposal.

Whilst we agree that the resource ladder must be reformed, as it is unfair and inequitable in its current form, we object to this proposal. We object to this proposal as it will significantly affect our pupils in the ASC resourced provision, as their funding is not safeguarded. Therefore, model A will lose the school approximately £30,000 a year.

93

Therefore, the impact of proposal 1 and proposal 3.1 would be a loss to the school of approximately £120,000 per year. This is equivalent to the loss of 4.3 teaching assistants.

Model B: 10% reduction in funding for band E and F bands Our response: We object to this proposal.

Whilst we welcome the safeguarding of the funding for pupils in the SRP, we do not agree with any drop in funding for band E or F pupils. We do not agree that there should be more funding for a pupil in primary compared to secondary. We agree that primary should not be funded more than secondary; however we believe that secondary pupils with ECHPs should be funded at a higher level than primary. This is because:

● Pupils are bigger, and their needs tend to become more evident as they move towards puberty.

● Pupils with ECHPs have more challenges accessing the curriculum as they become older

● Pupils with ECHPs in a mainstream secondary will have many teachers, many movements and many interactions every day. This will require a greater level of support.

● Our curriculum is more complex and specialised, and we require greater resourcing and specialist teachers

● As pupils with ECHPs go through puberty, they tend to develop additional SEMH needs which require greater support

It is not clear in the consultation document why primary pupils have historically been paid more nor why there is a case for parity between primary and secondary.

Therefore, moving forward with the banding reform, we would like to see:

● Secondary mainstream ECHP pupils being funded at a higher level to primary

● SRP pupils are safeguarded from any reductions

If these proposals are implemented as recommended, we believe that the impact will be:

1. An increase of schools (Special and Mainstream) saying that they cannot meet the needs of pupils in consultation requests as they cannot provide the level of resourcing required

2. An increase in legal challenges and tribunals as schools will not be able to provide the support laid out in individual EHCP’s

3. A return of XXX School to a deficit budget, if we continue to offer the same level of service in the next academic year. The scale of this deficit will increase year on year. If we have to deliver on these funding restraints, we will have to undergo a restructuring process which will lead to significant number of redundancies AND we will not be able to meet the needs of pupils as outlined in their ECHP.

4. An increase in exclusions, as schools will not be able to meet the needs of SEND pupils. This will increase the vulnerability of these pupils to risks beyond the school gates.

5. An increase in absenteeism, as some pupils will not be able to cope in school without the targeted support of key workers and TAs

94

The nature of the consultation

The consultation document is confusing, and there is no response to the concerns raised in the previous consultation. The consultation form is hard to find online and does not allow a detailed response. Parents are reporting that they find it difficult to complete. We are also being told information that is different to the consultation report. The consultation report states ‘Under this proposal the changes would be introduced from 1 April 2020 for all existing EHCPs at level E and F in our mainstream schools. The new funding levels would also be used for any EHCPs completed after 1 April 2020 and would apply until any further changes were made to the Resource Ladder.’. However, we have been told on several occasions that the new levels would only be used for new ECHPs and that older ECHPs will be phased over.

We urge the Local Authority to reconsider these proposals, and ensure that the High Needs Funding is maintained at the current levels as well as protected for the future. I hope that you will take the views of our School into consideration, and reflect on the impact that this funding reduction will have on our SEND pupils.

Kind regards

To whom It may concern,

I strongly disagree with your model B. Under model B, children on E and F band is 1374 out of 1643 , that means 83% of them will subject budget cuts! why only E and F? It's so unfair. E and F band children are mostly likely to integrate into society through EHCP when they grow up. If less support is provided because of budget cuts, your LA lost basic meaning of EHCP.

95 Appendix C: Summary of responses to the consultation with schools

There were 17 responses on this question from a total of 11 schools and the responses are summarised below.

Q5. Should Schools Forum agree to transfer 0.15% from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block?

YES 9

NO 8

Comments

Meets current Schools Forum values – Stability, Fairness and openness

Would be supportive of all children within the borough.

Would be supportive of all children within the borough.

High Needs is increasing all the time especially at our school and extra funding is needed

We have responded to the HNB consultation and as part of that response we agreed with the principle of all schools shouldering an equal burden to meet the deficit position. We did caveat our response that the top-slicing approach should not always be the default position of the LA as it is the ‘easiest’ option in most cases when funding shortfall consultations have been proposed in the past. The LA should set in-year sustainable balanced budgets, as the deficit has arisen from historical years of deficit not being addressed and the deficit accumulating which schools are not able to do in their own local budget setting contexts.

This is a crude application of the criteria and unfair. Poor financial modelling on the part of the LA has created the deficit. Schools should not be required to contribute to the deficit. Even if it was agreed that this was to be the case, this question cannot be answered until schools have had full understanding of the implications of the other means by which the deficit is to be addressed.

If there is to be a topslice it should be linked/scaled to the proportions of pupils with SEND at the school. It is unfair to ask schools with high proportions of funded SEND pupils – who will

96 lose income linked directly to EHCs under the new banded framework – to ALSO lose money through a topslice

We absolutely and fundamentally disagree with this proposal (please see our detailed response to the consultation). There are 2 key reasons for this:

1. Whilst this may enable the LA to balance the HNB, it will have the effect of pushing schools into deficit, thereby just moving the issue elsewhere

2. This is taking money away from mainstream pupils to support the shortfall for SEN

This fundamentally unfair and wrong, and will ultimately have an impact on our most vulnerable pupils. This cannot be agreed, and we need to be campaigned for appropriate levels of funding for all pupils in all schools.

97 APPENDIX B: INDICATIVE IMPACT OF TRANSFER OF 0.15% OF SCHOOLS BLOCK TO HIGH NEEDS BLOCK IN 2020-21 -0.15% 2020-21 Post Increase on Increase on Increase on Increase on Proposed 2019-20 Post 2020-21 Post MFG Budget 2019-20 after 2019-20 after School Name 2019-20 2019-20 Transfer to HNB - MFG Budget MFG Budget after Transfer to transfer transfer £ % 0.15% HNB £ % £198,693,473 £202,135,191 £3,441,719 1.73% -£303,203 £201,831,988 Chase Lane Primary School £3,179,810.61 £3,234,002.36 £54,191.75 1.70% -£4,851.00 £3,229,151.35 £49,340.75 1.55% Whitehall Primary School £1,920,273.51 £1,952,232.48 £31,958.96 1.66% -£2,928.35 £1,949,304.13 £29,030.61 1.51% Downsell Primary School £2,838,987.00 £2,887,512.81 £48,525.81 1.71% -£4,331.27 £2,883,181.54 £44,194.54 1.56% Newport School £3,461,993.28 £3,522,509.68 £60,516.40 1.75% -£5,283.76 £3,517,225.92 £55,232.63 1.60% Chapel End Infant School and Early Years Centre £1,201,868.50 £1,220,217.76 £18,349.26 1.53% -£1,830.33 £1,218,387.43 £16,518.94 1.37% Edinburgh Primary School £2,445,590.35 £2,486,012.71 £40,422.36 1.65% -£3,729.02 £2,482,283.69 £36,693.34 1.50% Greenleaf Primary School £1,845,596.86 £1,876,791.11 £31,194.25 1.69% -£2,815.19 £1,873,975.93 £28,379.07 1.54% Handsworth Primary School £1,755,800.25 £1,785,430.41 £29,630.16 1.69% -£2,678.15 £1,782,752.27 £26,952.01 1.54% Thorpe Hall Primary School £1,984,392.51 £2,017,589.23 £33,196.73 1.67% -£3,026.38 £2,014,562.85 £30,170.34 1.52% The Winns Primary School £3,315,018.50 £3,372,742.68 £57,724.18 1.74% -£5,059.11 £3,367,683.57 £52,665.07 1.59% Woodford Green Primary School £902,494.23 £916,465.51 £13,971.28 1.55% -£1,374.70 £915,090.82 £12,596.58 1.40% Oakhill Primary School £1,017,597.18 £1,033,695.19 £16,098.01 1.58% -£1,550.54 £1,032,144.65 £14,547.46 1.43% Henry Maynard Primary School £3,534,400.36 £3,595,679.28 £61,278.93 1.73% -£5,393.52 £3,590,285.76 £55,885.41 1.58% South Grove Primary School £2,165,145.69 £2,200,879.61 £35,733.92 1.65% -£3,301.32 £2,197,578.29 £32,432.60 1.50% Dawlish Primary School £938,252.89 £952,851.22 £14,598.33 1.56% -£1,429.28 £951,421.94 £13,169.05 1.40% Gwyn Jones Primary School £1,738,013.55 £1,767,352.12 £29,338.57 1.69% -£2,651.03 £1,764,701.09 £26,687.54 1.54% George Tomlinson Primary School £2,101,722.52 £2,137,130.84 £35,408.33 1.68% -£3,205.70 £2,133,925.15 £32,202.63 1.53% Mission Grove Primary School £3,343,407.29 £3,401,443.93 £58,036.64 1.74% -£5,102.17 £3,396,341.77 £52,934.47 1.58% Coppermill Primary School £1,179,315.64 £1,198,107.58 £18,791.95 1.59% -£1,797.16 £1,196,310.42 £16,994.79 1.44% Stoneydown Park School £2,292,890.16 £2,331,950.69 £39,060.53 1.70% -£3,497.93 £2,328,452.77 £35,562.60 1.55% Parkside Primary School £2,459,008.42 £2,501,429.47 £42,421.04 1.73% -£3,752.14 £2,497,677.32 £38,668.90 1.57% The Jenny Hammond Primary School £1,446,146.32 £1,469,716.43 £23,570.11 1.63% -£2,204.57 £1,467,511.85 £21,365.54 1.48% Ainslie Wood Primary School £1,858,029.30 £1,888,861.06 £30,831.76 1.66% -£2,833.29 £1,886,027.77 £27,998.47 1.51% Barn Croft Primary School £995,305.03 £1,010,804.32 £15,499.29 1.56% -£1,516.21 £1,009,288.11 £13,983.08 1.40% Chingford CofE Primary School £1,742,995.00 £1,772,672.05 £29,677.05 1.70% -£2,659.01 £1,770,013.04 £27,018.04 1.55% St Mary's Catholic Primary School £949,890.90 £965,030.05 £15,139.15 1.59% -£1,447.55 £963,582.51 £13,691.60 1.44% St Joseph's Catholic Junior School £971,456.94 £986,972.80 £15,515.86 1.60% -£1,480.46 £985,492.34 £14,035.40 1.44% St Joseph's Catholic Infant School £741,292.57 £752,575.67 £11,283.10 1.52% -£1,128.86 £751,446.80 £10,154.24 1.37% Our Lady and St George's Catholic Primary School £1,812,484.27 £1,843,422.71 £30,938.44 1.71% -£2,765.13 £1,840,657.57 £28,173.30 1.55% St Patrick's Catholic Primary School £1,845,850.80 £1,877,389.02 £31,538.22 1.71% -£2,816.08 £1,874,572.94 £28,722.14 1.56% Frederick Bremer School £6,026,905.05 £6,130,984.20 £104,079.15 1.73% -£9,196.48 £6,121,787.73 £94,882.68 1.57% Heathcote School & Science College £6,124,670.85 £6,230,400.31 £105,729.47 1.73% -£9,345.60 £6,221,054.71 £96,383.86 1.57% Willowfield School £5,520,888.17 £5,615,434.73 £94,546.56 1.71% -£8,423.15 £5,607,011.58 £86,123.41 1.56% Leytonstone School £5,063,522.66 £5,151,637.65 £88,114.99 1.74% -£7,727.46 £5,143,910.19 £80,387.53 1.59% Walthamstow School for Girls £5,471,318.99 £5,565,418.65 £94,099.65 1.72% -£8,348.13 £5,557,070.52 £85,751.52 1.57% Kelmscott School £5,306,276.15 £5,399,173.79 £92,897.64 1.75% -£8,098.76 £5,391,075.03 £84,798.88 1.60% Holy Family Catholic School £5,790,822.23 £5,894,645.76 £103,823.53 1.79% -£8,841.97 £5,885,803.79 £94,981.56 1.64% Buxton School £7,525,679.09 £7,660,552.38 £134,873.29 1.79% -£11,490.83 £7,649,061.55 £123,382.46 1.64% Lime Academy Larkswood £2,907,963.48 £2,958,794.25 £50,830.77 1.75% -£4,438.19 £2,954,356.06 £46,392.58 1.60% Yardley Primary School £1,878,948.61 £1,911,076.96 £32,128.34 1.71% -£2,866.62 £1,908,210.34 £29,261.73 1.56%

98 APPENDIX B: INDICATIVE IMPACT OF TRANSFER OF 0.15% OF SCHOOLS BLOCK TO HIGH NEEDS BLOCK IN 2020-21 -0.15% 2020-21 Post Increase on Increase on Increase on Increase on Proposed 2019-20 Post 2020-21 Post MFG Budget 2019-20 after 2019-20 after School Name 2019-20 2019-20 Transfer to HNB - MFG Budget MFG Budget after Transfer to transfer transfer £ % 0.15% HNB £ % £198,693,473 £202,135,191 £3,441,719 1.73% -£303,203 £201,831,988 Davies Lane Primary School £3,503,087.90 £3,565,017.39 £61,929.49 1.77% -£5,347.53 £3,559,669.87 £56,581.97 1.62% Hillyfield Primary Academy £5,700,609.82 £5,802,742.68 £102,132.86 1.79% -£8,704.11 £5,794,038.57 £93,428.75 1.64% Emmanuel Community School £932,857.63 £947,668.70 £14,811.07 1.59% -£1,421.50 £946,247.20 £13,389.57 1.44% Willow Brook Primary School Academy £2,396,022.56 £2,437,624.47 £41,601.92 1.74% -£3,656.44 £2,433,968.03 £37,945.48 1.58% The Woodside Primary Academy £4,653,522.77 £4,736,440.87 £82,918.10 1.78% -£7,104.66 £4,729,336.21 £75,813.44 1.63% Chapel End Junior Academy £1,562,904.21 £1,589,200.35 £26,296.14 1.68% -£2,383.80 £1,586,816.55 £23,912.34 1.53% Riverley Primary School £2,054,486.43 £2,089,768.21 £35,281.78 1.72% -£3,134.65 £2,086,633.56 £32,147.13 1.56% Sybourn Primary School £2,445,525.71 £2,488,083.79 £42,558.08 1.74% -£3,732.13 £2,484,351.66 £38,825.96 1.59% Thomas Gamuel Primary School £1,667,065.10 £1,695,303.28 £28,238.18 1.69% -£2,542.95 £1,692,760.32 £25,695.23 1.54% Walthamstow Primary Academy £591,879.60 £600,258.53 £8,378.93 1.42% -£900.39 £599,358.14 £7,478.54 1.26% Longshaw Primary School £1,451,014.38 £1,475,295.03 £24,280.64 1.67% -£2,212.94 £1,473,082.08 £22,067.70 1.52% Roger Ascham Primary School £2,003,984.78 £2,038,418.51 £34,433.73 1.72% -£3,057.63 £2,035,360.88 £31,376.10 1.57% Chingford Hall Primary School £1,574,746.11 £1,601,292.23 £26,546.12 1.69% -£2,401.94 £1,598,890.29 £24,144.18 1.53% Whittingham Primary Academy £1,831,867.54 £1,863,073.90 £31,206.36 1.70% -£2,794.61 £1,860,279.29 £28,411.75 1.55% Mayville Primary School £1,669,348.45 £1,697,514.10 £28,165.65 1.69% -£2,546.27 £1,694,967.83 £25,619.38 1.53% St Saviour's Church of England Primary School £1,524,467.10 £1,550,058.82 £25,591.73 1.68% -£2,325.09 £1,547,733.73 £23,266.64 1.53% St Mary's CofE Primary School £2,432,561.14 £2,474,860.85 £42,299.71 1.74% -£3,712.29 £2,471,148.56 £38,587.42 1.59% Barclay Primary School £4,988,862.88 £5,077,802.18 £88,939.30 1.78% -£7,616.70 £5,070,185.48 £81,322.59 1.63% Selwyn Primary School £2,543,186.76 £2,587,553.16 £44,366.40 1.74% -£3,881.33 £2,583,671.83 £40,485.07 1.59% South Chingford Foundation School £3,346,163.52 £3,404,958.25 £58,794.73 1.76% -£5,107.44 £3,399,850.81 £53,687.29 1.60% Eden Girls' School Waltham Forest £3,387,687.31 £3,447,386.05 £59,698.73 1.76% -£5,171.08 £3,442,214.97 £54,527.65 1.61% Connaught School for Girls £3,730,281.26 £3,796,388.94 £66,107.69 1.77% -£5,694.58 £3,790,694.36 £60,413.10 1.62% Norlington School and 6th Form £3,836,591.44 £3,904,629.83 £68,038.39 1.77% -£5,856.94 £3,898,772.89 £62,181.45 1.62% Highams Park School £6,739,707.52 £6,860,576.37 £120,868.85 1.79% -£10,290.86 £6,850,285.51 £110,577.98 1.64% Chingford Foundation School £7,225,037.59 £7,354,944.02 £129,906.43 1.80% -£11,032.42 £7,343,911.61 £118,874.02 1.65% Walthamstow Academy £5,530,583.16 £5,629,177.15 £98,594.00 1.78% -£8,443.77 £5,620,733.39 £90,150.23 1.63% Lammas School and Sixth Form £4,876,441.61 £4,963,180.63 £86,739.02 1.78% -£7,444.77 £4,955,735.86 £79,294.25 1.63% George Mitchell School £4,890,952.53 £4,978,383.40 £87,430.87 1.79% -£7,467.58 £4,970,915.82 £79,963.29 1.63%

99